Case Summary (G.R. No. 217682)
Stipulated and Core Facts
The parties stipulated that Lastimosa authored and published an opinion column titled "Si Doling Kawatan" in The Freeman on June 29, 2007; Lastimosa has regular media platforms; Garcia was Governor of Cebu and had never been a fish-monger nor a barangay captain. Lastimosa pleaded not guilty at arraignment.
Accusation and Published Article
The Information charged Lastimosa with libel for publishing an article that depicted a character "Doling" as having suddenly acquired wealth and power, being abrasive and cruel to neighbors and subordinates, and admitting "Yes, I am indeed a thief!" The Information alleged these imputations were meant to impeach the virtue, honesty, integrity and reputation of Governor Garcia.
Procedural History and Trial
Trial in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14, Cebu City, resulted in conviction for libel (Decision dated August 30, 2013), sentencing to a fine (with subsidiary imprisonment in default) and awarding P2,000,000 moral damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed conviction but reduced moral damages to P500,000 (Decision dated July 27, 2016). Lastimosa’s motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied (Resolution dated August 2, 2017). Lastimosa filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Prosecution’s Evidence and Witnesses
The prosecution presented: (1) Glenn Baricuatro — testified he immediately believed "Doling" referred to Governor Garcia, apparently based primarily on auditory similarity between "Doling" and "Gwendolyn"; (2) Atty. Pacheco Seares — testified that nine of his 15 media students thought the article pointed to Garcia (students were not presented as witnesses); (3) Governor Garcia — as private complainant; and (4) some of Lastimosa’s earlier articles about Garcia (used to suggest a pattern of imputing corruption and ill temper).
Defense Evidence and Contentions
Lastimosa maintained the article was a third-person fictional/allegorical piece and that "Doling" did not refer to Garcia because the character’s factual circumstances (e.g., former fish-monger, barangay captain, sudden acquisition of vehicles and property) did not match Garcia. Defense presented Atty. Democrito Barcenas to show a third person would not identify Garcia from the article.
RTC Decision and Rationale
The RTC found all elements of libel established beyond reasonable doubt, credited Baricuatro’s testimony that a third person would identify Garcia as "Doling," relied on Atty. Seares’ students’ reported recognition as corroborative, and considered Lastimosa’s prior writings about Garcia as demonstrating a pattern of imputations consistent with the article’s characterizations. The RTC convicted Lastimosa and awarded damages.
Court of Appeals Decision and Rationale
The CA affirmed conviction, holding the article was defamatory, published with malice, and that Garcia was clearly identified. The CA relied on extrinsic evidence, particularly Baricuatro’s testimony about his familiarity with Garcia and the strained relations between the parties, and applied jurisprudence recognizing identification can be established without explicit naming if third persons could and did recognize the plaintiff from the publication.
Issue on Appeal
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Lastimosa’s conviction for libel — specifically whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the required element that the victim (Garcia) was identifiable from the article.
Supreme Court’s Standard of Review and Constitutional Considerations
The Supreme Court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the need for meticulous review in libel prosecutions because of the constitutional protection for freedom of expression and the press under the 1987 Constitution. The Court reiterated that conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of each element of libel: (a) defamatory imputation, (b) malice, (c) publicity, and (d) identifiability of the victim.
Analysis — Defamatory Character, Malice, and Publicity
The Court found the article plainly defamatory (characterizing "Doling" as abrasive, cruel, arrogant, and a thief) and determined malice could be presumed from the defamatory imputation. The element of publicity was also satisfied, as Lastimosa admitted authorship and publication.
Analysis — Identifiability Requirement and Assessment of Evidence
The Supreme Court held that identifiability of the victim had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court scrutinized the prosecution’s extrinsic evidence and found it insufficient: Baricuatro’s testimony rested essentially on the auditory similarity between "Doling" and "Gwendolyn" and on his belief or opinion rather than knowledge of facts tying the character to Garcia; he admitted that many descriptive facts in the article did not match Garcia and that he had no independent knowledge of such factual links. Atty. Seares’ assertion that nine students identified "Doling" as Garcia was inadmissible hearsay because the students were not presented for cross-examination; moreover, Atty. Seares’ own testimony undermined the prosec
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 217682)
Court, Case Number, Date, and Ponente
- Third Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines; G.R. No. 233577; Decision dated December 05, 2022.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner/accused-appellant Leo A. Lastimosa.
- Decision authored by Justice Caguioa; Justices Inting (Chairperson), Gaerlan, and Singh concurred; Justice Dimaampao on official leave.
- Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Cebu City Special Nineteenth Division, CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 02233 (Decision dated July 27, 2016; Resolution dated August 2, 2017).
Parties
- Petitioner/Accused-Appellant: Leo A. Lastimosa — tri-media practitioner (regular opinion column "Arangkada" in The Freeman; radio commentator on DYAB; daily TV anchor on ABS-CBN local Channel 3).
- Private Complainant / Victim Allegedly Defamed: Gwendolyn F. Garcia — incumbent Governor of the Province of Cebu (serving third consecutive term at time of proceedings; at time of the article was serving the penultimate date of her first term).
- Respondent: People of the Philippines (prosecution).
Accusatory Information — Nature and Text of the Allegation
- Information for Libel alleged publication on or about 29 June 2007, in Cebu City, in The Freeman, column "Arangkada," of an article titled "Si Doling Kawatan" that, with evident purpose of impeaching the virtue, honesty, integrity and reputation of Gwendolyn F. Garcia and with malice, composed, prepared, wrote, published and caused to be published defamatory imputations.
- The Information set out a translated excerpt of the column describing a character "Doling" as a former fish-monger whose sudden wealth, vehicles and property growth, abrasive and cruel conduct after gaining political power (including being elected barangay captain), and alleged admission "Yes, I am indeed a thief!" — imputations that tend to cause dishonor, discredit and prejudice to Gov. Garcia.
Stipulated Facts at Pre-Trial
- Parties stipulated the following material facts:
- Lastimosa is a tri-media practitioner with a regular opinion column "Arangkada" in The Freeman.
- He has a radio commentary show on DYAB (AM band of ABS-CBN) and is a daily TV anchor on ABS-CBN Channel 3 ("TV Patrol-Central Visayas").
- On 29 June 2007 The Freeman published in "Arangkada" the article "Si Doling Kawatan" written by Lastimosa.
- Private complainant Gwendolyn F. Garcia was then and is an incumbent Governor of Cebu (serving her third consecutive term later in proceedings).
- At the time of publication, Garcia was serving the penultimate date of her first term as Governor.
- Lastimosa authored the subject article.
- Governor Garcia had conferred on Lastimosa the "Garbo sa Sugbo Award" (2006), proclaiming him as pride of Cebu in media.
- It was a matter of public knowledge that Governor Garcia had never been a fish-monger and had never been a barangay captain.
Prosecution Theory and Evidence Presented at Trial
- Prosecution’s theory:
- The article "Si Doling Kawatan" was about Governor Gwendolyn Garcia and was written to tarnish her reputation as governor and as a Cebuana woman, mother and grandmother.
- Prosecution witnesses and purpose:
- Glenn Baricuatro — presented to prove that a third person would immediately know Garcia was the one referred to by the character "Doling."
- Atty. Pacheco Seares — presented to show that in his media class nine of 15 students observed a plain reading of the article pointed to Garcia as "Doling."
- Gwendolyn F. Garcia — testified for the prosecution (details in record).
- Documentary evidence included some of Lastimosa’s older articles to show prior intimations that Garcia was corrupt, ill-tempered, or foul-mouthed.
Defense Theory and Evidence Presented at Trial
- Lastimosa’s defense:
- The article was a work of fiction in third-person narrative form and did not refer to Governor Garcia; "Doling" did not correspond to Garcia’s personal circumstances.
- He maintained lack of identification as a complete defense to libel.
- Defense witness:
- Atty. Democrito Barcenas — presented to prove that a third person would not think of Garcia when the article was read in full.
Trial Court (RTC) Ruling — Findings and Sentence
- RTC, Branch 14, Cebu City, Decision dated August 30, 2013:
- Found Lastimosa GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Libel.
- Sentence: Fine of Six Thousand Pesos (₱6,000) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
- Ordered payment of moral damages to private complainant (Ex-Governor Gwendolyn F. Garcia) in the amount of Two Million Pesos (₱2,000,000) and costs of proceedings.
- RTC reasoning:
- Found all elements of libel established beyond reasonable doubt.
- Gave full credence to Baricuatro’s testimony that he believed "Doling" referred to Garcia.
- Considered Atty. Seares’s testimony that nine of his 15 students thought the article was about Garcia as additional proof of identification.
- Relied on Lastimosa’s older articles as demonstrating he had earlier intimated similar imputations about Garcia — supporting malice and identification.
- Concluded the article was libelous and published maliciously.
Court of Appeals (CA) Ruling — Findings, Modification and Reasoning
- CA Decision dated July 27, 2016 in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 02233:
- Affirmed the RTC judgment but MODIFIED award of moral damages, reducing it from ₱2,000,000 to ₱500,000.
- Rest of RTC ruling affirmed.
- CA reasoning:
- Found prosecution established all elements of libel: defamatory imputation, publication with malice (not privileged), and clear identification of Garcia.
- Emphasized circumstances suggesting malice — prior civil and criminal cases filed by Garcia against Lastimosa, descriptive words used in the article, and apparent motive to injure reputation.
- On identification, relied on jurisprudential standard that identity need not be named if intrinsic references or extrinsic circumstances enable third persons to know who is referred to; accepted Baricuatro’s testimony as a third person who recognized Garcia as "Doling."
- Applied rule that a third person’s recognition (Kunkle v. Cablenews-American; Lyons) suffices where such third person could or did identify the vilified party.
- CA Resolution dated August 2, 2017 denied Lastimosa’s motion for reconsideration.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of Leo A. Lastimosa for Libel.
Supreme Court — Disposition
- Supreme Court