Freedom of Expression (Art. (Art. 3, Sec. 4, 1987 Constitution) 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 journalist with two radio radio programs aired over Visayas 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 Sunday Post, a weekly publication publication edited and and published by the petitioner. petitioner. Torrablba asserted that he had been acquitted and the cases referred to had already been settled. He sought Lim and petitioner’s petitioner’s conviction for libel as well as mora, compensatory, exemplary damages and attorney’s 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 advertisements via newspaper was self-defense. 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 person’s reputation by slanderous words or libelous publications is obliged to make full compensation compensation for the damage done. The CA affirmed RTC’s 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 editorpublisher of the Sunday Post, the finding of guilt against him constitutes and infringement infringement of his constitutional right to freedom of speech and of the press. ISSUE: Whether the publication publication subject subject matter was indeed 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.
