This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-11-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Defamatory words must refer to an ascertained or ascertainable person, and that person must be the plaintiff. Statements are not libelous unless they refer to an ascertained or ascertainable person.[22] However, the obnoxious writing need not mention the libeled party by name. It is sufficient if it is shown that the offended party is the person meant or alluded to.[23] | |||||
|
2005-03-31 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Finally, the private respondent claims that the banner headline ridiculed him before the public does not merit consideration as the rule in this jurisdiction is that "[t]he headline of a newspaper story or publication claimed to be libelous must be read and construed in connection with the language that follows."[53] A perusal of the entire news story accompanying the headline in this case readily establishes the fact that the questioned article dealt with refutations by the private respondent's critics of his explanation over the radio with regard to the issues mentioned therein. The wording of the headline may have contained an exaggeration but the same nevertheless represents a fair index of the contents of the news story accompanying it.[54] | |||||
|
2004-03-25 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| In order to ascertain the meaning of a published article, the whole of the article must be considered, each phrase must be construed in the light of the entire publication x x x The headlines of a newspaper must also be read in connection with the language which follows.[25] Petitioner brands the news item as a "malicious sensationalization" of a patently embellished and salacious narration of fabricated facts involving rape and attempted rape incidents. For, so petitioner argues, the police blotter which was the sole basis for the news item plainly shows that there was only one count of abduction and rape reported by Emelita. | |||||