US VS BUSTOS G.R no.
L-12592
FACTS:
Thirty-four citizens of the Province of Pampanga assembled, prepared, and signed a petition to the
Executive Secretary, in 1915 through the law office of Crossfield & O’Brien, together with five individuals
who signed affidavits charging Roman Punsalan, justice of the peace of Macabebe and Masantol, with
malfeasance. Hence, the request to remove him from his office. The specific charges include solicitation
of money from persons with pending cases before the judge. The Executive Secretary referred the
papers to the judge of first instance for the Seventh Judicial District requesting investigation, proper
action, and report. Punsalan was notified and denied the charges filed against him. The judge of the first
instance found the first count not proved while counts 2 and 3 established. With this, Honorable Percy
M. Moir recommended that the Governor-General remove Punsalan from his position. However,
Punsalan filed a motion for a new trial and the judge of first instance granted the motion. Here,
Punsalan claimed that he was a victim of prosecution. He was acquitted. However, the complainants
(defendants herein) filed an appeal to the Governor-General but was not acted upon. Therefore, all 34
citizens were found guilty and sentenced to pay 10 pesos or suffer imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The defendants filed a motion for a retrial, but the trial court denied the motion. All the defendants
appealed except Sabado and Macalino. In this appeal, the defendants and appellants are acquitted with
the costs de officio.
ISSUE: Do the defendants guilty of libel?
RULING: The Supreme Court held No.
Opinion: Malice has not been proved by the prosecution, and despite the charges probably not being
true, the defendants acted with good faith since there was probable cause for the defendants to think of
a possible malfeasance. Hence, the motives to remove the justice of the peace from office was
considered justifiable and proper since it passed through reputable attorneys and submitted to the
proper functionary. Clearly, it was not an abuse of privilege. As the Court stated the court find the
defendants and appellants entitled to the protection of the rules concerning qualified privilege, growing
out of constitutional guarantees in our bill of rights. Hence, the decision stated that instead of punishing
citizens for an honest endeavor to improve the public service, we should rather commend them for their
good citizenship.
Doctrine: The guaranties of a free speech and a free press include the right to criticize judicial conduct.
The administration of the law is a matter of vital public concern. Hence, complete liberty to comment
on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. A public officer must not be too
thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts. Only thus can the intelligence and dignity
of the individual be exalted. Of course, criticism does not authorize defamation. Nevertheless, as the
individual is less than the State, so must expected criticism be born for the common good. Rising
superior to any official, or set of officials, to the Chief Executive, to the Legislature, to the Judiciary — to
any or all the agencies of Government — public opinion should be the constant source of liberty and
democracy.
