MANILA, Philippines?Entertainment writer Cristinelli ?Cristy? Fermin has one million reasons to be unhappy.

She will benefit from the Supreme Court circular urging magistrates to do away with imprisonment for libel convictions, but she will have to pay P1 million to celebrity couple Annabelle Rama and Eddie Gutierrez. (An earlier INQUIRER.net report said the amount was P806,000)

A 24-page decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura upheld the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Quezon City Regional Trial Court finding Fermin guilty of libel.

The high court has upheld Fermin?s libel conviction for publishing on June 14, 1995, an article in Gossip Tabloid that said Rama was trying to evade serving a sentence for estafa imposed by a Manila court by surreptitiously leaving the Philippines, that she was in no position to return to the United States because she and her husband had earlier committed offenses there in relation to their cookware business and that she was accustomed to betting heavily in casinos in the US.

Rama and Gutierrez, along with their then young children, lived in the United States for a time.

Fermin was the publisher of the nationally circulated Gossip Tabloid magazine. It has reportedly ceased publication.

On Jan. 27, 1997, she and the editor in chief, Bogs Tugas, were convicted of libel by the Quezon City RTC. They were each sentenced to a maximum of one year and eight months in jail and ordered to pay moral damages. On Sept. 3, 2002, the Court of Appeals affirmed Fermin?s conviction but acquitted Tugas.

?Reeks of malice?

In the decision handed down on March 28, the Supreme Court said the article was libelous and not covered by the mantle of press freedom.

?To say that the article, in its entirety, is not libelous disturbs one?s sensibilities; it would certainly prick one?s conscience ... More importantly, the article reeks of malice, as it tends to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of the complainants,? the tribunal said.

It said the article had imputed the crime of malversation on Rama and Gutierrez by stating that the couple used for their own needs the money paid by their Filipino customers in their cookware business.

The tribunal also said the article had suggested that the couple and their family were fugitives by saying they returned to the Philippines to evade prosecution, and that Rama had vices by alleging that she squandered her money in casinos.

According to the high court, Rama and Gutierrez were able to refute the article?s claims by proving they could return to the United States at any time and remained on good terms with the company that manufactured the cookware.

Motive

In her defense, Fermin had stated that she bore no malice toward Rama and Gutierrez but was just making an honest comment because a warrant had been issued for Rama.

But the high court observed that Fermin had admitted in court a close association with Parañaque Rep. Roilo Golez and former Parañaque Mayor Joey Marquez and that she would use her skills to campaign for them.

It pointed out that Gutierrez had run against Golez for Parañaque representative and, thus, Fermin had a motive for making defamatory imputations against the couple and could not claim lack of malice on her part.

?Verily, not only was there malice in law, the article being malicious in itself, but there was also malice in fact, as there was motive to talk ill against complainants during the electoral campaign,? it said.

The high court also said that for a libel conviction, it was not necessary that there be proof of knowledge and participation of the accused in the publication of the article, as long as he/she had been identified as the author, editor or proprietor, or printer or publisher of the publication.

"Petitioner?s criminal guilt should be affirmed, whether or not she had actual knowledge and participation, having furnished the means of carrying on the publication of the article purportedly prepared by the members of the Gossip reportorial team, who are employees under her control and supervision," the high court said.

In this case, Fermin was the publisher, president and board chair of Gossip Tabloid. She has also testified that she handled the business aspect of the publication and assigned the editors who took charge of everything, the high court said.

?Obviously, petitioner had full control over the publication of articles in the said tabloid. Her excuse of lack of knowledge, consent or participation in the release of the libelous article fails to persuade,? it said.

Beltran?s case

The tribunal also said it could not apply the Court of Appeals? ruling that acquitted newspaper publisher Max Soliven in the libel case filed against Luis Beltran for his column on then President Corazon Aquino. (In that column, Beltran?now deceased?said Aquino had hidden under her bed during a coup attempt mounted by military officers.)

The appellate court said Soliven?also now deceased?was not liable because there was no evidence that he knew of and approved Beltran?s column.

But according to the high court, that decision cannot bind it because the ruling on Soliven attained finality only in the appellate court.

The high court also disagreed with the appellate court?s acquittal of Tugas, saying that based on evidence, the latter had clearly participated in the publication of the article, and that his alibi that he was confined in hospital was not acceptable.

But it said it could not reinstate the RTC decision and convict Tugas of libel because it would subject the latter to double jeopardy.

Fine over jail

In doing away with the jail sentence on Fermin, the high court cited its recent circular preferring fines over imprisonment in libel cases, depending on the circumstances.

(The circular states that imprisonment is still an option, but only when imposing just a fine would depreciate the seriousness of the offense. Because of the wide latitude given to utterances against public figures, the penalty of a P6,000 fine for each count of libel instead of imprisonment is warranted.)

But it increased to P500,000 each?from P300,000 each?the amount in moral damages that Fermin must pay to Rama and Gutierrez for the ?serious anxiety and wounded feelings? suffered by the couple.

The high court also said it had taken into account the fact that Fermin was on good terms with the couple and there was no offense that could have provoked the malicious article. With a report from Tetch Torres, INQUIRER.net