EN
BANC
THE
UNITED STATES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 13784
January
6, 1919
-versus-
G. U.
LIONGSIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
D
E C I S I
O N
MALCOLM,
J :
On November 14,1916, there
was published in the "Kong Li Po," a Chinese newspaper in the City of
Manila,
an article, which, in translation, reads as follows:
"Vice-diplomatic
official
disgraces his country. P500 a month for his expenses. All is Chinese
people's
money. Sent here to encourage gambling and disgrace country. We hope
all
Chinese residents rise and attack him.
"These few days
what
the press has reported, which is particularly welcomed as well as
unlimitedly
lamented by our Chinese residents, is about a certain club's gambling
case.
"The trouble is
caused
by well-known merchants, but what makes men hate the most is the
encouragement
strenuously exerted by a certain vice-official. The result is that
today
gambling dens have sprung up like trees and that countless merchants
have
been rendered bankrupt. Others gamble for pastime, but this
vice-official
makes money from it.
"We remember that
last
year as soon as the vice-official removed to a house near the Grand
Opera
House, a gambling den was set up. Every night the telephones of all big
merchants ring when the vice-official calls for his gambling comrades.
The vice-official is short and small, but very wise. He does not enter
the game but sits beside it just counting chips for others. He gets a
10
percent of the winnings. When there are no servants around he himself
serves
others tobacco and water. This is no exaggeration. All having been
there
remember it. Alas, a country's representative has thus become a slave !
His house is surrounded by shady and thick trees and is a gambling
resort.
But things often happen beyond expectation, and the vice-official's
nightly
income averaging at P50 is cut off. For a certain wealthy man was one
of
the patrons and his motive was for something else. His eyes often
peeped
in the dark. The drunkard's object was not gambling. Later the
vice-official's
wife knowing thoroughly the principles of virtue, demanded the stoppage
of the business, threatening divorce. The vice-official obeyed with
painful
reluctance. Since then there has been no gambling in his house and he
has
never visited any other gambling den, for he is not fond of gambling
but
of being a gambling host to be sure to make money.
"When the certain
club
was organized the vice-official was one of the organizers. He strongly
advocates big games. Those a little known in gambling places are each
night
visited by messengers who say that the club was organized by the
vice-official,
is detective-proof, and is safer than a place insured against harm. So
the business of other gambling dens is badly affected, and their owners
have informed the secret service that the club really has come to be a
gambling den.
"That night the
vice-official
was there counting chips for others. Had he actually been at the game
we
are afraid the merciless detectives must have ordered a special car to
welcome him away and would surely not protect the honor of China's
dignity.
Alas, our nation yearly spends several thousand gold dollars to post
such
a gambling advocating official to disgrace the country! Even if such an
official system were suddenly abolished we think it would make no
difference.
"Chinese residents!
Chinese residents! Should we tolerate any longer such a degraded being."
The editor and proprietor
of the "Kong Li Po" on this date was G. U. Liongsin, now become the
defendant
and appellant. His responsibility for the alleged libelous matter is
not
disputed. Neither was there any question that the article referred to
the
then Chinese Vice-Consul in the City of Manila, whose name was Ling Pao
Heng, alias Paul H. Linn.
Because of these facts,
G. U. Liongsin was prosecuted for the crime of libel, and on his
failure,
in the judgment of the trial court, to prove the truth of the article
in
question, and to establish good motives and justifiable ends, was found
guilty and sentenced to two months imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P200,
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and the costs.
The numerous
assignments
of error by appellant present two principal questions: 1. Was the
article
published by defendant libelous per se; 2. Has the defense
proved
that the charges contained in the article were true and that they were
published with good motives and for justifiable ends.
The first question
offers no difficulty. The article was a vicious attack on the good name
of the Chinese Vice-Consul. It was more than mere criticism; it was
scathing
denunciation of that official's alleged wrongdoings, which put him in a
bad light in the eyes of his countrymen, and which would be especially
injurious to the career of one associated with the consular service.
The
newspaper editor pictures the Vice-consul, in a satirical vein, as
having
promoted the vice of gambling among the Chinese, as even having set up
a gambling den in his own house, from which he was accustomed to
collect
a percentage, and as a slave doing menial work through his lust for
gain.
Insinuations as to the private life of the offended party are also
made.
The article ends by calling the consul a "degraded being."
This, within the
meaning
of our Libel Law, is a malicious defamation. It is clearly a libel.
The article in question
being libelous per se, a complete defense could only consist of
proof of the truth of the matter charged as libelous, and that it was
published
with good motives and for justifiable ends.
The lower court held
that the defense had failed either to establish or to justify the
charges.
With this finding of the trial court, We also agree. Thus, the defense,
by witnesses and the complainant, by admissions, showed that the consul
had on different occasions engaged in a friendly game of machock with
prominent
Chinese visitors at his house. The judge who saw the game of machock
played
in court pronounced it to be a game of skill and not of chance. The
further
testimony of the witnesses for the accused, attempting to show that the
offended party retained a certain percentage from the game and that he
fomented the gambling evil among the Chinese community in the City of
Manila,
was discredited in the view of the lower court. Such, again, was the
result
of the effort of the defense to assail the morality of the Consul. To
repeat,
the defense has not by evidence, which is believable, justified the
libelous
article.
The motive, which
actuated
the defendant in publishing the article complained of, was apparently
to
call the attention of his countrymen to facts in relation to their
consular
representative at Manila, and which he believed to be true, with the
view
of changing the conditions, or of procuring the Consul's removal. The
defendant
declared upon the witness stand as follows:
"I published this
article
because I had heard that many Chinamen were being ruined by the vice of
gambling. I know of many cases in which the players had lost much money
and some had become crazy. In another case, the most important because
it was in relation to a Chinaman who had lost his fortune in gambling
and
afterward committed suicide by jumping into the river. Due to gambling
many merchants ruin themselves and have been declared insolvent. Many
others
were arrested for gambling, some were dismissed and others went to
jail.
I have letters in which I am told to go myself to these places and
obtain
the news and I have also learned the same from rumors. I have
information
in respect to him [meaning the Vice-Consul], and his general reputation
that he gambled in his own house, the same as at a club, and because he
is Vice-Consul of China in the Philippine Islands, and as such is
considered
as the second person among the Chinese in Manila, he has no right to
gamble;
and naturally if all the Chinese were to follow his example all would
gamble,
and that is the reason why I published the article in the belief that
all
Chinamen would stop gambling."
Such
was, indeed, laudable
purpose. Unfortunately, however, the purpose merely veils what appears
to be a mean desire of obtaining a redress of personal grievances.
Unfortunately,
again, the mere fact that defendant believed the charges to be true, or
that at the time of publication the defamatory matter was the subject
of
general rumor or report, is no justification. Even goodness of
intention
is not always sufficient to warrant the giving of publicity to an
injurious
allegation of an untruth.
With this result, the
trial court, apparently having in mind malice and bad faith on the part
of the defendant, and the high standing of the offended party as a
representative
of the Republic of China, departed from his usual practice to impose a
prison sentence. On a full consideration of all the facts of record, We
agree with the decision of the trial court, except that We do not
consider
this such an aggravated case as would merit imprisonment. Accordingly,
judgment is modified to the end that the defendant and appellant shall
be sentenced to pay a fine of P500, or to suffer subsidiary
imprisonment
in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs of both instances. So
ordered.
Arellano, C.J.,
Torres, Carson, Araullo, Street, Avanceña and Moir, JJ.,
concur.
Johnson, J.,
reserves his vote. |