Freedom of Expression (Art. 3, Sec.

4, 1987 Constitution)

BALANUECO, RICHELLE QUEEN

ID No. 164124

Ciriaco BOY Guingguing vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals and The
People of the Philippines

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 petitioners conviction for libel as well as mora, compensatory,
exemplary damages and attorneys 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 persons
reputation by slanderous words or libelous publications is obliged to make full
compensation for the damage done.

The CA affirmed RTCs 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.

RATIO:

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.