CIRIACO ‘BOY’ GUINGGUING,
Petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
G.R. No. 128959 September 30, 2005
FACTS:
Cirse “Choy” Torralba, a broadcast journalist with two radio programs aired over Visayas and
Mindanao, filed a criminal complaint for libel against Segundo Lim and petitioner, Guingguing
for causing the publication of records of his criminal cases as well as photographs of his arrest.
The items were published in a one-page advertisement paid for by Lim in the Sunday Post, a
weekly publication edited and published by the petitioner.
Torrablba asserted that he had been acquitted and the cases referred to had already been settled.
He sought Lim and petitioner’s conviction for libel as well as mora, compensatory, exemplary
damages and attorney’s fees. He alleged that the publication placed him in public contempt and
ridicule and was designed to degrade and malign his person and destroy him as a broadcast
journalist. Lim, in his defense, claimed that Torralba was attacking him and his family through
the radio and his paid advertisements via newspaper was self-defense.
The trial court concluded that the publication was libelous stating that malice is the most
important element of libel because every defamatory publication prima facie implies malice on
the part of the author and publisher. It also ruled that publication of calumny even against
public officers or candidates for public office is an offense most dangerous to the people. It
further held that a private reputation is as constitutionally protected as the enjoyment of life,
liberty and property such that anybody who attacks a person’s reputation by slanderous words
or libelous publications is obliged to make full compensation for the damage done.
The CA affirmed RTC’s decision with a modification on the penalty. It held that the purpose of
self-defense in libel is to repair, minimize or remove the effect of the damage caused to him but
it does not license the utter blow-for-blow scurrilous language in return for what he received.
Hence, petitioner filed for petition for review on certiorari contending that as editor-publisher of
the Sunday Post, the finding of guilt against him constitutes and infringement of his
constitutional right to freedom of speech and of the press.
ISSUE:
Whether the publication subject matter was indeed libelous.
HELD:
No. Torralba failed to established actual malice in the case. Aside from the fact that the
information contained in said publication was true, the advertisement in question falls squarely
within the bounds of constitutionally protected expression under Art. 3, Sec. 4, 1987
Constitution.
Under the Revised Penal Code, libel is defined as a public and malicious imputation of a
crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or
juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. Thus, the elements of
libel are: (a) imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another; (b) publication of
the imputation; (c) identity of the person defamed; and, (d) existence of malice.
In libel cases involving public figures, actual malice standard rule applies. As held in
New York Times vs. Sullivan and reiterated in Agiong vs. Comelec, even if the
defamatory statement is false, no liability can attach if it relates to official conduct,
unless the public official concerned proves that the statement was made with actual
malice — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it
was false or not.
Therefore, in order to justify a conviction for criminal libel against a public figure, it
must be established beyond reasonable doubt that the libelous statements were made or
published with actual malice.
In the present case, Torralba was a public figure, being a broadcast journalist who hosts
a public affairs program. By entering into this line of work, complainant in effect gave
the public a legitimate interest in his life. He likewise gave them a stake in finding out if
he himself had the integrity and character to have the right to criticize others for their
conduct.
Aside from the fact that the information contained in said publication was true, the
intention to let the public know the character of their radio commentator can at best be
subsumed under the mantle of having been done with good motives and for justifiable
ends. Since Torralba failed to establish actual malice against Lim and Guingguing, the
petition for reversal of the judgment of libel against petitioner was granted.
