APOSTOL, MIKEE ESTELLA GEM P.

1-H

CIRIACO BOY GUINGGUING VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. NO. 128959 SEPTEMBER 30, 2005

FACTS: On July 29, 1996 and October 3, 1996, Ciriaco Boy Guinguing and Segundo Lim was
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of libel. Guingguing filed a Petition for Review assailing
the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals on the said dates. Only Guingguing filed a
petition of certiorari, hence the verdict of guilt with respect to Lim was already final and
executaory.
Circe Choy Torralba was a broadcast journalist of DYLA and DYFX aired in Visayas and
Mindanao. He filed a criminal complaint for libel against Lim and Guingguing.
On Oct 13, 1991, Lim publicized records of criminal cases against Torralba, as well as photographs
of him being arrested. It was published in a one-page advertisement in Sunday Post which was a
weekly publication edited and published by Guingguing. According to Lim, he published it as a
form of self-defense against Torralba who attacks his family on his two radio programs.
Torralba asserted that he has been acquitted and that the cases (Malicious Mischief (May 13, 1979),
Estafa (July 12, 1982), and Serious Physical Injuries (April 29, 1989)) referred to in the publication
had already been settled.
He sought the conviction of Lim and Guingguing for libel and claims that such publication placed
him in public contempt and ridicule and was designed to degrade and malign his person and destroy
him as a broadcast journalist.

The trial court and the Court of Appeals found the publication indeed libelous since malice, which
is the most important element of libel, was present in this case.

Thus, petitioner prayed for reversal of this judgment against him contending that his conviction by
the lower courts constitute an infringement of his constitutional right to freedom of speech and of
the press.

ISSUE: Whether or not the publication in this case is indeed libelous.

RULING: No, the publication in this case is not libelous. The lower courts applied the strict letter
of the law. However, this Court is compelled to delve deeper into the issue considering that changes
in the factual milieu evoked a change in the judgment applicable.

Under the law, criminal 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
APOSTOL, MIKEE ESTELLA GEM P.
1-H

or condition to another; (b)publication of the imputation; (c) identity of the person defamed; and,
(d) existence of malice.

Also, the bill of rights protects the free speech of a person, even if this free speech is not polite and
comes in the most unsophisticated form. According to New York Times, to consider a statement
libelous there must be a room for misstatement of fact as well as misjudgment. This doctrine
requires that liability for defamation of a public figure may not be imposed in the absence of
actual malice on the part of person making the libelous statement.

In this case, an examination of the records of this case showed that the publication were actually
true. The intention to let the public know the character of Torralba can be subsumed under the
mantle of having been done with good motives and justifiable ends. The advertisement in question
falls squarely within the bounds of constitutionally protected expression under Section 4, Article
III and thus, acquittal is mandated.

Petition granted, assailed decision, and resolution reversed and set aside. Petitioner acquitted.