G.R. No. 147524 - Lim vs. Court of Appeals

Case Digest (G.R. No. 147524)
Advanced

Facts:

Parties, criminal charge, and source of alleged libel

Petitioner Segundo S. Lim, together with Boy “BG” Guingguing, stood accused in Criminal Case No. CBU-26582 for libel.
The libel case stemmed from petitioner’s cause of publication of records of criminal cases filed against Torralba, including photographs of his arrest, through a one-page advertisement paid for by petitioner in the Sunday Post, a weekly publication edited and published by petitioner’s co-accused, Boy “BG” Guingguing.
The complainant in the libel case was private respondent Cirse “Choy” Torralba.
The Regional Trial Court convicted the accused as principals of the crime of libel charged in the Information, defined and penalized in Art. 353 in relation to Art. 355 of the Revised Penal Code.

Trial court conviction and penalty

The Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 7 rendered a Decision dated May 17, 1994 finding SEGUNDO LIM and BOY “BG” GUINGGUING guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The trial court imposed an indeterminate prison term ranging from One (1) year, Eight (8) months and Twenty-one (21) days as minimum to Two (2) years, Eleven (11) months and Eleven (11) days of prision correccional as maximum.
The trial court ordered the accused to indemnify the complainant in P50,000.00 and to pay the costs.

Appeal by petitioner to the Court of Appeals and modification of penalty

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in a Decision dated July 29, 1996, but modified the penalty.
The CA’s decretal portion sentenced accused-appellants to an indeterminate penalty of TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of arresto mayor as minimum to ONE (1) YEAR, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS of prision correccional as maximum.
The CA affirmed the decision appealed from en [sic] toto, except as modified, and assessed costs against the accused-appellants.

Supreme Court review petition by petitioner and finality of judgment

Petitioner filed a petition for review docketed as G.R. No. 126701.
The Court denied the petition in a Resolution dated December 4, 1996 for failure to comply with Revised Circular No. 1-88, because the petition did not contain a certified true copy of the resolution denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
The Resolution became final and executory.
Entry of judgment was made on March 20, 1997.

Co-accused’s later Supreme Court petition

Petitioner’s co-accused Boy “BG” Guingguing filed with the Court a petition for review dated April 4, 1997, docketed as G.R. No. 128959, entitled Ciriaco “Boy” Guingguing v. The Honorable Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines.
The petition remained pending resolution.

Trial court’s order for promulgation and petitioner’s attempts to prevent enforcement

On May 26, 2000, the trial court granted a motion filed by the private prosecutor praying for promulgation of the judgment of conviction against petitioner.
Promulgation was set on June 6, 2000.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied in a Resolution dated September 18, 2000.
Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 60952.
On February 5, 2001, the CA denied the petition due course and dismissed it; it held that the temporary restraining order issued on 03 October 2000 became functus oficio after expiration of 60 days from issuance.
On March 19, 2001, upon motion of the State and the private prosecutor, the trial court set promulgation of petitioner’s judgment of conviction on April 26, 2001.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with the CA, but the CA denied it in a Resolution dated June 22, 2001.

Present petition and temporary restraining order from the Court

Petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition with urgent prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order.
In a Resolution dated April 27, 2001, the Court granted petitioner’s prayer for a temporary restraining order, enjoining the trial court from enforcing its Order dated March 19, 2001, and required respondents to file their comment.
Petitioner asserted that his co-accused’s petition in G.R. No. 128959 was still pending and that, since liabilities were interwoven, prudence required that a final decision be awaited.

OSG’s stance supporting stay pending co-accused’s acquittal

Instead of filing a comment, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) submitted a Manifestation in Lieu of Comment (With Recommendation for the Reversal of the Assailed Order/Ruling).
The OSG agreed that promulgation of the judgment of conviction should be stayed pending resolution of G.R. No. 128959.
The OSG cited Rule 122, Section 11 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure to argue that petitioner’s conviction was not yet final and executory despite entry of judgment.
The OSG reasoned that if the Court acquitted Guingguing, petitioner should likewise benefit, because it would be inconsistent to hold petitioner guilty while Guingguing remained acquitted despite that the charge arose from the same written article.
The OSG invoked reasons of justice and equity to support the stay.

Decision in co-accused’s case and its effect on petitioner’s liability

On September 30, 2005, the Court rendered a decision in G.R. No. 128959, acquitting Guingguing of the charge of libel.
The acquittal ruling emphasized that the complainant was a public figure, so the prosecution had to prove actual malice on the part of Lim and the petitioner when the advertisement was published.
The Court held that if statements against the public figure were essentially true, then no conviction for libel could be had, and any statement without a provably false factual connotation received full constitutional protection.
The Court found the precis of the information in the advertisement were actually true, relying on complainant’s testimony that there was nothing untruthful about what was published.
The Court reasoned that the criminal cases listed in the advertisement were indeed filed and were matters of public record, and that the information went into complainant’s character and integrity, which his listening public had a legitimate interest in because complainant hosted a public affairs program involving public character concerns.
The Court discussed that lower courts had given heed to Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, which presumes malice even if the imputation is true if no good intention and justifiable motive are shown.
The Court ruled that when applied to public figures complaining of criminal libel, Article 354 must be construed in light of the constitutional guarantee of free expression, consistent with the Court’s precedents upholding a standard of actual malice, such that a true statement regarding a public figure is not libelous.
The Court also held that the publication could not be deemed done with actual malice, given the truth of the information and the intention to let the public know the character of their radio commentator, subsumed under good motives and justifiable ends.
The Court concluded that the advertisement fell within bounds of constitutionally protected expression under Section 4, Article III of the Constitution, and acquittal was mandated.
The Court noted in this case that its decision in G.R. No. 128959 stated that “the verdict of guilt with respect to Lim [herein petitioner] had already become final and executory,” but it also held that th...(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Supreme Court E-Library

Case Digest (G.R. No. 147524)
Concise Detailed

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 147524)
Advanced

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 147524) Concise Detailed

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 147524) Advanced

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 147524)
Concise Detailed

Case Digest (G.R. No. 147524)
Advanced