Remedial Law

People vs. Benipayo

People vs. Benipayo, G.R. No. 154473, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA 420.
Topic: JURISDICTION.
Ponente: NACHURA, J.
Facts: The petitions, while involving the same issues, rest on different factual settings, thus:
In G.R. No. 154473, respondent Alfredo L. Benipayo, then Chairman of the COMELEC, delivered a speech
in the "Forum on Electoral Problems: Roots and Responses in the Philippines" held at the Balay Kalinaw,
University of the Philippines-Diliman Campus, Quezon City. The speech was subsequently published in
the February and 5, 2002 issues of the Manila Bulletin.
Petitioner corporation, believing that it was the one alluded to by the respondent when he stated in his
speech that:
Even worse, the Commission came right up to the brink of signing a 6.5 billion contract for a registration
solution that could have been bought for 350 million pesos, and an ID solution that isn't even a requirement
for voting. But reason intervened and no contract was signed. Now, they are at it again, trying to hoodwink
us into contract that is so grossly disadvantageous to the government that it offends common sense to say
that it would be worth the 6.5 billion-peso price tag.

filed, through its authorized representative, an Affidavit-Complaint for libel.

Arguing that he was an impeachable officer, respondent questioned the jurisdiction of the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Quezon City (OCP-QC). Despite the challenge, the City Prosecutor filed an Information for
libel against the respondent with the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 102.
Petitioner moved that the case be ordered consolidated with the other libel case [Criminal Case No. Q-02-
103406, which is the subject of G.R. No. 155573] pending with Branch 101 of the RTC.
Respondent also moved for the dismissal of the case on the assertion that the trial court had no jurisdiction
over his person for he was an impeachable officer and thus, could not be criminally prosecuted before any
court during his incumbency; and that, assuming he can be criminally prosecuted, it was the Office of the
Ombudsman that should investigate him and the case should be filed with the Sandiganbayan.
While the RTC found that respondent was no longer an impeachable officer because his appointment was
not confirmed by Congress, it ruled that the case had to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction considering
that the alleged libel was committed by respondent in relation to his office — he delivered the speech in his
official capacity as COMELEC Chair. Accordingly, it was the Sandiganbayan that had jurisdiction over the
case to the exclusion of all other courts.
On motion for reconsideration, the trial court adhered to its ruling that it was not vested with jurisdiction to
hear the libel case.
In G.R. No. 155573, respondent, as COMELEC Chair, and COMELEC Commissioner Luzviminda
Tangcangco were guests of the talk show "Point Blank", hosted by Ces Drilon and televised nationwide on
the ANC-23 channel. The television show's episode that day was entitled "COMELEC Wars". In that
episode, the following conversation transpired:
Drilon:

Are you saying, Chairman, that COMELEC funds are being used for a "PR" campaign
against you? Is that what you are saying? ISTCHE

1
Remedial Law
People vs. Benipayo
Benipayo:

No, I think [it's] not COMELEC funds, [it's] Photokina funds. You know, admittedly,
according to [c]hargé d'[a]ffaires of the U.S. Embassy[,] in a letter sent to me in July of 2001, it is
what's been [so] happening to the Photokina deal, they have already spent in excess of 2.4 [m]illion
U.S. [d]ollars. At that time[,] that's about 120 [m]illion pesos and I said, what for[?] [T]hey wouldn't
tell me, you see. Now you asked me, [who is] funding this? I think it's pretty obvious.

Petitioner considered respondent's statement as defamatory, and, through its authorized representative, filed
a Complaint-Affidavit for libel. Respondent similarly questioned the jurisdiction of the OCP-QC. The City
Prosecutor, however, consequently instituted Criminal Case No. Q-02-109406 by filing the corresponding
Information with the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 101.
Respondent also moved for the dismissal of the information raising similar arguments that the court had no
jurisdiction over his person, he being an impeachable officer; and that, even if criminal prosecution were
possible, jurisdiction rested with the Sandiganbayan.
The trial court dismissed the Criminal Case for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the respondent and
thereafter denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
Thus, the present the two consolidated petitions for review on certiorari filed under Rules 45 and 122 of the
Rules of Court.
Issue: Whether or not the RTC has exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
Held: Yes. The Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of Criminal Cases Nos. Q-02-109406 and Q-02-
109407 and their remand to the respective Regional Trial Courts for further proceedings.
Uniformly applied is the familiar rule that the jurisdiction of the court to hear and decide a case is conferred
by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action, unless a latter statute provides for a retroactive
application thereof. Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. 4363,
is explicit on which court has jurisdiction to try cases of written defamations, thus:
The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as provided for in this
chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance [now, the Regional
Trial Court] of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where
any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense . . . . 33

More than three decades ago, the Court, in Jalandoni v. Endaya, acknowledged the unmistakable import of
the said provision:
There is no need to make mention again that it is a court of first instance [now, the Regional Trial Court]
that is specifically designated to try a libel case. Its language is categorical; its meaning is free from doubt.
This is one of those statutory provisions that leave no room for interpretation. All that is required is
application. What the law ordains must then be followed.
This exclusive and original jurisdiction of the RTC over written defamations is echoed in Bocobo v.
Estanislao, where the Court further declared that jurisdiction remains with the trial court even if the libelous
act is committed "by similar means", and despite the fact that the phrase "by similar means" is not repeated
in the latter portion of Article 360. In these cases, and in those that followed, the Court had been unwavering
in its pronouncement that the expanded jurisdiction of the municipal trial courts cannot be exercised over
libel cases.

2
Remedial Law
People vs. Benipayo

The applicable law is still Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, which categorically provides that
jurisdiction over libel cases [is] lodged with the Courts of First Instance (now Regional Trial Courts).
Lastly, in Administrative Order No. 104-96 issued 21 October 1996, this Court delineated the proper
jurisdiction over libel cases, hence settled the matter with finality:
"RE: DESIGNATION OF SPECIAL COURTS FOR KIDNAPPING, ROBBERY, CARNAPPING,
DANGEROUS DRUGS CASES AND OTHER HEINOUS CRIMES; INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND JURISDICTION IN LIBEL CASES.

xxx xxx xxx

"LIBEL CASES SHALL BE TRIED BY THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS HAVING

JURISDICTION OVER THEM TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL
COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS."

As we have constantly held in Jalandoni, Bocobo, People v. Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Br.
32, Manzano, and analogous cases, we must, in the same way, declare herein that the law, as it still stands
at present, dictates that criminal and civil actions for damages in cases of written defamations shall be filed
simultaneously or separately with the RTC to the exclusion of all other courts. A subsequent enactment of
a law defining the jurisdiction of other courts cannot simply override, in the absence of an express repeal
or modification, the specific provision in the RPC vesting in the RTC, as aforesaid, jurisdiction over
defamations in writing or by similar means. The grant to the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over offenses
committed in relation to (public) office, similar to the expansion of the jurisdiction of the MTCs, did not
divest the RTC of its exclusive and original jurisdiction to try written defamation cases regardless of
whether the offense is committed in relation to office. The broad and general phraseology of Section 4,
Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act No. 8249, cannot be construed to have impliedly
repealed, or even simply modified, such exclusive and original jurisdiction of the RTC. Since jurisdiction
over written defamations exclusively rests in the RTC without qualification, it is unnecessary and futile for
the parties to argue on whether the crime is committed in relation to office.