CD - People Vs Chua Hiong

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FEDERICO M. CHUA HIONG, defendant-appellant. G.R. No. 10413-R

October 20, 1954

PONENTE: MACADAEG, J

The case is one of libel. After trial defendant herein, — Federico M. Chua Hiong, was found guilty of the crime and accordingly, was sentenced to the indeterminate penalty of from 3 months and 11 days of arresto mayor to 1 year, 8 months and 21 days of prisién correccional. He comes now on appeal.

FACTS

  Federico Chua Hiong is the uncle of Cesareo Gacheco. Gacheco and his family



were defeated civil caseand in the of Manila, which, if not overturned by the SC, would leadintoaGacheco co.CFI losing 2/3 of the inheritance left by a Paulino Gacheco. Hiong sided with the party that defeated Gacheco.   This created tension and Gacheco wrote the Chief Finance Agent of the Department of Finance charging Hiong with tax evasion and using a fake citizenship. He then wrote a letter to Vice President Fernando Lopez accusing Hiong of illegal transactions with the government.   A letter was written written by a certain Benito Solipco to Hiong. (The SC says Solipco was undoubtedly if not Gacheco himself, acting under Gacheco’s inducement.)     It said that the members of the Go Family Association, of which G Gocheco ocheco belonged, told Solipco that they will make every vengeance against Hiong, such as paying some persons to kill him, or reporting him to every Philippine







Government Authority that he is a communist and other kinds of vengeance.   The letter warned Hiong to be careful as the Go Family were all his enemies now and that they will make every vengeance against him at all cost.   The letter was contained in an envelope along with with a rope which contained a note saying “this serves for your personal use.”   Hiong received threats on the phone and was denounced as a communist through anonymous letters.   Gocheco then caused to be published articles entitled “Doubtful Citizenship” in the Feb 11, 1952 issue of the Manila Chronicle.   It said that while while the Commissioner of Immigration Immigrat ion had certain evidences supporting the Filipino citizenship of Hiong, the Commisisoner’s decision was based on questionable proofs. It then proceeded to enumerate the evidences such as:











 

1. Mr. Frederico M. Chua Hiong and his family, as shown, by the Master List of alien registeredin 1941 with the Bureau of Immigration, were registered under reg no.s. 199461 to 199466. 2. The proceedings of the Board of Special Inquiry at the Port of Manila, under Chinese Board Report No. 1451, show that Mr. Chua Hiong was admitted into the country as legitimate minor son of Chua Pe on September 23, 1913. 3. A certified Chinese Marriage Certificate secured from the local Civil Registrar shows that his marriage was performed by the Chinese Consul at the Chinese YMCA in 1926. 4. Affidavits sworn to by residents of Aparri, Apar ri, Cagayan, the place where the alleged mother (of Hiong) lives, and submitted by the Chief of Police at the instance of the investigator in this case, show that the alleged mother has never left Aparri, much less the Philippines, and therefore could not give birth to Hiong who was born in China.   In response, Hiong caused Seriously Speaking to be published in the Manila Chronicle. It said: “This investigation was only one of a series of other investigations conducted by different agencies of our government at the instigation of Mr. Gocheco, who appears to be obsessed with a persecution mania in order to



besmirch my name and reputation and harass me and my family. To my eternal shame and misfortune, Mr. Cesario T. Gocheco is my nephew. As such, he is cognizant of all of the facts of my life for he has known me for the past 25 years….Why then this sudden concern over my citizenship? Why this mad desire to bring harm to me and my family? The reason is not hard to find  –  personal revenge is the moving passion in this drama of intrigues and persecution to which I and my family have been subjected.… It is easy to imagine the gloom, despondency and despair, that must have seized the Gocheco family when the above decision was handed down as that would divest them of everything that they now have and thus face stark poverty… It is obvious that the name “Benito Sulipco” is fictitious, as it is the most natural thing that my enemies should cowardly hide behind the cloak of anonymity, but, one need not stretch the imagination too far to be able to guess the “mastermind behind these threats... For what could be better or more convenient to my enemies than my untimely death, or for that matter, my deportation from this country had they been able to prove their charges filed with the different government agencies. What better or more convenient weapon can my enemies avail of then a this systematic and malicious persecution in order to coerce or cajole me into submitting to their demands that I should desist from proceeding with the civil case I have instituted against the Gocheco family which shall ultimately reduce them to the poverty of the proverbial church- mouse?”   Because of the article above, Hiong was found guilty of libel by the RTC. He now appeals.



 

ISSUE

Whether or not Chua Hiong’s libelous publication pub lication was a proper act of self -defense -defense RULING

YES Self-defense applies to the crime of libel. Self-defense is a man’s inborn right. In a physical assault, retaliation becomes unlawful after the attack has ceased, because there would be no further harm to repel. But that is not the case when it is aimed at a person’s good name. Once the aspersion is cast its sting clings and the one thus defamed may avail himself of all necessary means to shake it off. He may hit back with another libel which, if adequate, will be justified. Granting that the “Seriously Speaking”   column of the Manila Chronicle caused by Hiong was libelous, is it unnecessarily libelous? It was intended to counteract the impression left in the mind of the public by the article “Doubtful  Citizenship” which Gocheco caused to be published in the Manila Chronicle on Feb. 11, 1952. Hiong was living as a Filipino, his livelihood depended mainly upon enterprises only Filipinos can engage in. It is perfectly conceivable that any attempt to assail his Filipino citizenship should meet the keenest defense from him. To flout in public the genuineness of one’s citizenship is slanderous, nobody would dare deny, the more so Hiong’s case for obvious reasons. The Doubtful Citizenship column makes it appear that his citizenship was acquired through questionable means and that an investigation is currently being conducted with respect to the legali ty of his citizenship. Gocheco’s  purpose was to malign Hiong. Because he lost in the civil case, Gocheco decided to air his grievances through the press. Hiong’s Seriously Speaking Column is not necessarily libelous because Hiong is entitled to show Gocheco’s motive behind Doubtful Citizenship and to dispel the bad impression about him of those who had read it.

DISPOSITION:

For all the foregoing, we find that the libel in question is justified and appellant is, therefore, acquitted with costs de officio.