Roberto Brillante Vs. Court of Appeals and The People of the Philippines G.R. Nos. 118757 & 121571. October 19, 2004

Roberto Brillante Vs. Court of Appeals and The People of the Philippines G.R. Nos. 118757 & 121571. October 19, 2004 
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/46218
Tinga
== Issues ==
As a journalist and as a candidate for public office, Brillante should have known that it is necessary to further verify the truth or at least the reliability of the intelligence reports before making them public. His hasty publication thereof negates the existence of good faith and justifiable motives.
In the cases at bar, although the open letter was primarily addressed to then President Aquino, the communication thereof was not limited to her alone. It was also published in several newspapers of general circulation and was thus made known to the general public. 
In order to prove that a statement falls within the purview of a qualifiedly privileged communication under Article 354, No. 1, the following requisites must concur: (1) the person who made the communication had a legal, moral, or social duty to make the communication, or at least, had an interest to protect, which interest may either be his own or of the one to whom it is made; (2) the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or superior, having some interest or duty in the matter, and who has the power to furnish the protection sought; and (3) the statements in the communication are made in good faith and without malice.
However, since the open letter and the statements uttered by Brillante 
during the January 7, 1988 press conference are defamatory and do not 
qualify as conditionally privileged communication, malice is presumed 
and need not be proven separately from the existence of the defamatory 
statement.
With respect to the third issue, the Court agrees with the appellate 
court that Brillante’s right to equal protection of the laws was not 
violated when he was convicted of libel while his co-accused were 
acquitted.
== Decisions ==
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petitions are GRANTED in part.
The Decision of
 the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 14475 is AFFIRMED with the 
MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages to private complainant Dr. 
Nemesio Prudente in Criminal Cases No. 89-69614, 89-69615, 89-69616 is 
reduced to Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). The Decision of
 the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR No. 15174 is likewise AFFIRMED with 
the MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages to private complainants
 Atty. Jejomar Binay and Francisco Baloloy is reduced to Five Hundred 
Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) in Criminal Cases No. 88-1410, 88-1411, 
88-1412 and 89-721, and Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) in 
Criminal Case No. 88-3060, respectively.