An  appeal from a judgment convicting  the  appellants of the crime of libel.

The articles in question appeared in the "Camarinense," a newspaper public in the Province of Ambos Camarines. The publication of the articles and responsibility for the same, if any, are  admitted by the accused.

The salient features of the articles complained of are as follows: 

(From an article published  June 9, 1910, entitled  "The Babudo Affair") 

"We cannot believe, as some  suppose, that Governor Perfecto,  incapable and  powerless to  go  against  the  will of Major  Swann and  other Americans,  succumbed  to the demands of the all powerful, performing an act of shameful fawning.  There still remains to us a little of the opinion  which we had  of him when his  government was inaugurated." 

(From an article published July 14, 1910, entitled  "Balance Semestral")

"What then has been his policy during the six months? A policy of intrig of fawning and of submissions.  Policies  of cowardice  when confronted another  man more powerful than himself, and a policy of oppression toward his fellow-creatures.   And to think that he boasts of being a Nacionalista! 

"What Rizal said is true: 'Man is a creature of circumstances.'

"An ironical expression which is appropriately applied to those persons draw their sustenance from the people but who pay no attention  to the groans of the people."

(From an article published August 4,1910, entitled "" Consummatum Est.")

"Altogether the  postponement in  the casting of his  vote in order to examine this matter more carefully and submit it to the municipalities most comical farce, put on the stage in order to conceal  and shroud  hi villainous falsity.
  "Because, it is falsity and a villainous one too, to promise the people the elections  took place that as soon as he was made governor he  would vote for the single cedula tax, which promise was repeated as governor many times on different occasions and in the presence of many persons, and then to act as did  - JUDAS." 

(From an article published  August 4, 1910, entitled "Gobierno de Par "What nepotism!   We first said that the government, of Perfecto was of favors to  his partisans.  We must now rectify  this and further reduce circle,  because it is not a government of favors  to partisans, but  excl a  government of 'relatives.' 

"It beats by far  the motto: 'When  Sagasta goes  up, Sagasta's adherent go up.' 

"Perfecto practices this other one, still more lucrative: 

'When I  go up,  my  relatives go up with me.'  enough. "This  is to  ha neither decorum nor shame."

That these  publications are  libelous under  the  statute is  beyond question.  They  tend directly  to impeach  the honesty,  integrity, an reputation of the  person slandered and to expose  him to  public  hatred contempt, and ridicule.

Men have the right to attack, rightly or wrongly,  the policy of a public official with every argument which ability can find or ingenuity invent may show, by argument good or  bad, such policy to be  injurious  to th individual and to society.  They may  demonstrate,  by  logic true or f that it  is  destructive of human freedom and will result in the overthrow the nation itself.   But the law does not permit men falsely to impeach motives, attack the honesty, blacken  the virtue, or  injure the  reputation that official.  They may destroy, by fair means or foul, the whole fabric his statesmanship, but the law does not permit them to attack the man himself.   They may falsely charge that his policies are  bad, but they may not falsely allege that he  is bad.

The defendants  had the right to call the attention of the public to th personal or official relations  existing between Governor Perfecto and Swann and other Americans. They might comment, fairly or unfairly, upon what he had actually  done  as a result of those relations,  and what had actually done upon their representations and initiative. They were justified  in dilating upon those relations and acts and in demonstration arguments good or bad, all of the disasters which they might claim would follow them. But unless it was true, and they were doing it with good motives and for justifiable ends, they had no right to draw the  inference that he was a coward or  that his administration was one of cowardice, to charge that; when confronted by men more powerful than  himself, he displayed  the nature of  a weakling and a fawner.

The  accused had also the right  to call  attention to the pre-election promise  of the  governor and his failure to fulfill that promise after election.   They had a right to take up and discuss the reasons which h gave for his not fulfilling such promise; and  they were justified in t attempts to show what evil results  flowed  from his failure to live up by any argument  they chose to present.  But they had no right, unless was true and they published it with good motives and for justifiable en to say that his acts were the product of a  villainous  falsity  and th carried out his promise in the  same manner as Judas.

It is  undoubted that the accused might  call attention to the fact that Governor Perfecto was appointing a number of his relatives to public office.  They  had a right to  comment upon what they  deemed to be the impropriety of such a policy and to use every argument to sustain t contention.  They had a right to call  the attention of the people to w they might claim to  be  the disastrous effects flowing from such a  po But they  had no right,  unless it was  true and they published it  wit good  motives and for justifiable ends, to assert that, for that reason was without shame or decorum in his administration of public affairs.

Men  may argue, but they may not traduce.  Men may differ, but they may not, for that reason,  falsely charge dishonesty. Men may look at policies from  different points of view and see them in  different ligh they may not, on that account, falsely charge criminality, immorality, virtue, bad  motives,  evil intentions,  or  corrupt heart or mind.  Me falsely charge that  policies are bad, but they cannot falsely charge t men are  bad.

The attempt on the part of the defendants to prove the truth of their allegations  resulted  in  complete failure. While they may have proven fact that Governor Perfecto made a promise before election that he did not fulfill after election and that  he placed  some of his relations in office, that  does not establish the charge that he was dishonest, that acted with villainous falsity, and that he was without shame or decorum The proof of the commission of an act does not establish at the same time an unjustifiable  inference from that fact against the  integrity character of  the  man who performed the act proved.

While the defendants were properly convicted, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice will be fully subserved in the present case by  a fine merely, instead of fine and imprisonment.

The judgment appealed from is hereby modified and the defendants sentenced  to pay a fine of P1,000 each,  with subsidiary imprisonment each  according to  law in case of nonpayment, with costs.

Arellano, C. J.,  Torres, Mapa, and Johnson,  JJ., concur.