Words like “dull, uneducated, ignorant, and bias” aired against public officials in the discharge of their official duties are not defamatory or slanderous unless proven with malice.
“Statements against public officers do not constitute oral defamation when made in relation to their discharge of official duties, unless the prosecution establishes that they were uttered with actual malice,” the Supreme Court (SC) declared in a decision made public last Oct. 16.
The decision, written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, reversed the rulings of the trial courts and the Court of Appeals (CA), and acquitted Argelyn M. Labargan of grave oral defamation.
The complaint against Labargan was filed by Aileen R. Macabangon, a barangay kawagad (village council member) of Barangay Muntay, Kolambugan, Lanao del Norte.
Macabangon mediated the dispute between Labargan and a certain Edna Jumapit during a barangay conciliation.
Sometime in February 2013, while Macabangon was passing by Labargan’s house in the same barangay, the former heard the latter yell that the barangay kagawad is “dull, uneducated, ignorant and biased towards Jumapit.”
Macabangon filed a case against Labargan. The municipal circuit trial court (MCTC) convicted Labargan and sentenced her to a prison term ranging from four months and one day to one year. Labargan was also ordered to pay P2,000 in moral damages and P2,000 in attorney’s fees.
When the regional trial court (RTC) affirmed her conviction, Labargan elevated the case to the CA which sustained the RTC’s ruling. However, the CA in 2018 and 2019 rulings reduced the prison term to a straight six months imprisonment.
Undeterred, Labargan elevated the case to the SC. The SC ruled citing previous decisions:
“A public official, more especially an elected one, should not be onion- skinned. Strict personal discipline is expected of an occupant of a public office because a public official is a property of the public. He is looked upon to set the example how public officials should correctly conduct themselves even in the face of extreme provocation.
“Always he is expected to act and serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency and shall remain accountable for his conduct to the people.
“Public office is a public trust. Persons clothed with authority, especially those elected by the public, must be prepared for public scrutiny, and potentially, criticisms inherent in the position.
“In interpreting laws criminalizing defamation of public officers, this Court notes that protection of these fundamental rights is primordial.
“Recognizing that free speech empowers the citizens in exacting accountability from public officers, conviction for defamation involving statements related to their discharge of official duties entails proof that they were made with actual malice. Actual malice cannot be presumed.
“Recalling the antecedents, the object of the complaint were statements against Macabangon, who was then a kagawad…. The imputations were criticisms of her competence as a barangay kagawad, originating from her supposed partiality against petitioner in the barangay conciliation proceedings.
“Clearly, these relate to Macabangon’s discharge of her official duties as a public officer. While petitioner’s declarations may be offensive, they are not actionable by themselves. ‘Being sensitive has no place in this line of service, more so when allowing otherwise has the potential to create a chilling effect on the public.’
“The prosecution did not show that actual malice attended petitioner’s declarations. It was not established whether the defamatory statements were made with knowledge that these were false, or with reckless disregard as to its falsity. Considering the constitutional presumption of innocence, acquittal ensues.
“Due to the prosecution’s failure to prove malice in uttering the defamatory statements, this Court finds that petitioner is not guilty of grave oral defamation.
“Accordingly, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is granted. The Court of Appeals’ Sept. 6, 2018 decision and March 15, 2019 resolution in CA-GR CR No. 01545-MIN are reversed and set aside.
“Argelyn M. Labangan is acquitted of grave oral defamation. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately. So ordered.”