This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-06-05 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Further, Adonis seeks the retroactive application of Administrative Circular No. 08-2008, citing Fermin v. People,[22] where the Court preferred the imposition of the fine rather than imprisonment under the circumstances of the case. Administrative Circular No. 08-2008, was issued on January 25, 2008 and provides the "guidelines in the observance of a rule of preference in the imposition of penalties in libel cases." The pertinent portions read as follows:All courts and judges concerned should henceforth take note of the foregoing rule of preference set by the Supreme Court on the matter of the imposition of penalties for the crime of libel bearing in mind the following principles: | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It was further explained in Fermin v. People[13] as follows:The doctrine of stare decisis enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires courts in a country to follow the rule established in a decision of the Supreme Court thereof. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land. The doctrine of stare decisis is based on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument.[14] | |||||
|
2008-09-16 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As Tulfo cannot simply say that he is not liable because he did not fulfill his responsibility as a journalist, the other petitioners cannot simply say that they are not liable because they did not fulfill their responsibilities as editors and publishers. An editor or manager of a newspaper, who has active charge and control of its management, conduct, and policy, generally is held to be equally liable with the owner for the publication therein of a libelous article.[40] On the theory that it is the duty of the editor or manager to know and control the contents of the paper,[41] it is held that said person cannot evade responsibility by abandoning the duties to employees,[42] so that it is immaterial whether or not the editor or manager knew the contents of the publication.[43] In Fermin v. People of the Philippines,[44] the Court held that the publisher could not escape liability by claiming lack of participation in the preparation and publication of a libelous article. The Court cited U.S. v. Ocampo, stating the rationale for holding the persons enumerated in Art. 360 of the RPC criminally liable, and it is worth reiterating:According to the legal doctrines and jurisprudence of the United States, the printer of a publication containing libelous matter is liable for the same by reason of his direct connection therewith and his cognizance of the contents thereof. With regard to a publication in which a libel is printed, not only is the publisher but also all other persons who in any way participate in or have any connection with its publication are liable as publishers. | |||||