Title
Leo A. Lastimosa vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 233577
Decision Date
Dec 5, 2022
A journalist acquitted of libel as the court found insufficient evidence linking a fictional character to a public official, upholding free expression.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 138810)

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14, Cebu City, convicted Lastimosa of libel, imposing a fine of ₱6,000 (with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency) and awarding moral damages of ₱2,000,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction, reduced moral damages to ₱500,000, and denied reconsideration. Lastimosa then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Applicable Law

Because the decision was rendered in 2022, the 1987 Philippine Constitution governs the balance between freedom of expression (Article III, Section 4) and the State’s power to penalize defamatory speech. The Revised Penal Code defines libel (Art. 353) and presumes malice in defamatory publications (Art. 354). Jurisprudence further specifies four elements of libel—defamatory imputation, malice, publicity, and identifiability of the victim—and elaborates modes of proving identifiability (intrinsic reference, descriptive linkage, or extrinsic evidence).

Facts

  1. Lastimosa’s column “Si Doling Kawatan” described “Doling” as a former fishmonger who suddenly amassed property, vehicles, and political power, then terrorized neighbors with insults and threats.
  2. Parties stipulated that Garcia had never been a fishmonger nor a barangay captain, and at the time was serving her first term as Governor.
  3. Lastimosa had been a vocal critic of Governor Garcia, resulting in multiple libel and civil suits.
  4. During trial, the prosecution presented Glenn Baricuatro and Atty. Pacheco Seares to testify that “Doling” unambiguously referred to Garcia; Lastimosa countered that the piece was fiction and no clear identification existed.

Issue

Whether the CA erred in sustaining Lastimosa’s conviction when the element of identifiability—that “Doling” referred to Governor Garcia—was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling on Elements of Libel

  • Defamatory Imputation: The article branded “Doling” a thief and depicted vice and cruelty. Under Novicio v. Aggabao, the plain, ordinary meaning of these terms suffices to establish defamation.
  • Malice: Presumed by law given the defamatory nature of the imputation. Since the column attacked private character unrelated to official acts, the privileged-communication exception did not apply (Sazon v. Court of Appeals).
  • Publicity: Conceded, as the article was published in a widely circulated newspaper.
  • Identifiability: The Court found reasonable doubt. Although identifiability may be proven without naming the victim, reference must be clear by intrinsic description or reliable extrinsic evidence (Kunkle v. Cablenews-American; Corpus v. Cuaderno).

Analysis on Identifiability

  • Intrinsic Reference and Descriptions: The column provided no unique link—such as accurate biographical or circumstantial details—tying “Doling” to Garcia.
  • Extrinsic Evidence: Baricuatro’s testimony rested solely on the auditory similarity between “Doling” and “Gwendolyn” and lacked p

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.