Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Guingguing VS., People
Guingguing VS., People
in Borjal v. Court of Appeals[73] in ascertaining whether the contextual circumstances of the case. The newspaper in question,
The Court has likewise extended the actual malice rule to apply
complainant therein was a public figure, thus warranting the the Sunday Post, is particularly in circulation in the areas where
not only to public officials, but also to public
application of the actual malice test.[74] complainants broadcasts were aired. Certainly, it cannot be
denied that the target audience of the newspaper were the same publication were actually true. Thus, complainant himself
Q: Now, is it true that there was a criminal case
persons who may have listened regularly to the complainants testified: against you for Estafa docketed as
broadcast. Even if the sphere of complainants renown is limited criminal case No. 17984-R filed July
Q But is it true that these cases published in 21, 1982 where the complaints were
in geography, it is in the same plane as the circulation of the Exhibit F-1 are actually existing or Pio Go and Mrs. Rosalita Roldan?
previous cases?
offending newspaper. The extent of complainants ability to A At the time of the publication those cases A: Yes.
influence hearts and minds through his broadcasts need not be were terminated, long terminated.
Q: Is it true that there was also a criminal case
established, only that he has such capacity and willingness to Q But is it true that in fact, there was a criminal filed against you numbered 14843-R
case No. R-43035 for Malicious for Serious Physical Injuries, date filed
exert an influence. Complainants volition to practice the radio
Mischief filed May 10, 1979 against April 28, 1980 which in this publication
broadcasting profession necessarily thrusts him in the public you? appears provisionally dismissed April
14, 1991?
sphere. FISCAL ROCAMORA: A: That case, I do not have any idea about it.
Your Honor, I believe the witness did not Q: Did you inquire from the appropriate Court
Actual Malice Not Proven understand the question. when you received a copy of this to
find out if it is true that these cases
COURT: (to Stenographer) were filed against you?
As it has been established that complainant was a public figure, it A: As far as I know, in fact, I never received any
Read back the question. subpoena or anything about this case.
was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove actual malice on
the part of Lim and petitioner when the latter published the Q Is it true that in fact, there was a criminal Q: Yes, but did you upon receipt of Exhibit F-1,
case No. R-43035 for Malicious did you inquire from the Court
article subject matter of the complaint. Set otherwise, the Mischief filed May 10, 1979, against whether it is true that these cases had
you? been recorded as filed against you?
prosecution must have established beyond reasonable doubt that
A I really do not know about that accusation. A: Well, as far as I know like the Estafa case, I
the defendants knew the statements in the advertisement was was already long been acquitted in
that case.
false or nonetheless proceeded with reckless disregard as to
publish it whether or not it was true. Q: You did not answer the question. Will you
COURT: please answer.
It should thus proceed that if the statements made against the Proceed. COURT: (to witness)
public figure are essentially true, then no conviction for libel can
ATTY. FLORIDO: Q: The question is, did you inquire from the
be had. Any statement that does not contain a provably false Court concerned whether that case
Q When you came across the publication, did exist?
factual connotation will receive full constitutional you check if in fact there was a case A: Yes.
protection.[75] An examination of the records of this case showed docketed with that number against
you? Did you check?
that the prcis of information contained in the questioned A I did not.
operatives (right) of the Cebu City Cebu City, you also have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
COURT: Police under Police Lieutenant Col. 7, 8, 9 criminal cases before the
Eduardo Ricardo just to serve on the Regional Trial Court of Cebu per
Proceed. former a warrant of arrest issued by certificate that I marked as Exhibit 3. Is
the Cebu RTC Judge German Lee that correct?
ATTY. FLORIDO: relative to the suit filed by Apocemco A: Yes, but all those cases have already been
against a businessman. Is it true that either acquitted or dismissed. I will
Q: And you discovered that they were true you were arrested? present the certification.
that this was provisionally dismissed
A: Yes.
with reference to 14843-R for Serious Q: Specifically, these cases has something to
Physical Injuries. You made inquiries? do with your character. Let me count
A: Yes. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 cases for Estafa, the
Q: So this photograph is genuine photograph?
6th case for issuance of a bouncing
A: Yes.
Q: And you also know that Dr. Jovenal check, the 7th case is a case for
Almendras your godfather in the issuance of a bouncing check; and the
Q: And you claimed that you have a good
wedding had also filed a case of 9th is also for issuance of a bouncing
reputation and that good reputation
Malicious Mischief against you? check. You will confirm that?
had been soiled by the accused in this
A: I know but that was in the past.
case. Let me ask you concerning your
....
reputation then. Is it not a fact that
Q: Yes, I know that that was in the past, but
aside from this record of criminal
that is true? COURT: (to witness)
cases appearing in Exhibit F-1, you
A: Yes.
have also been at one time or another
Q: What happened to those cases?
been accused of several other criminal
Q: So, there is nothing false so far as Exhibit F- A: I was acquitted your Honor. I was acquitted
cases both in and out of the City of
1? in all those cases, some are dismissed,
Cebu?
A: There is no question about that but that is and fortunately, your Honor, I do not
A: Yes, before, 10 years, 15 years ago.
malicious. have any conviction.[77]
Q: And in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
Q: Let me see. On the lefthand side of the
alone in Cebu City, you have the
bottom it says. Not too long ago, I
following per certificate which we From the foregoing, it is clear that there was nothing
received the following newspaper
marked as Exhibit 2. Criminal Case
clippings courtesy of the Cebu City untruthful about what was published in the Sunday Post. The
Nos. 14843-R for Serious Physical
concerned citizens. The caption story
Injuries, Torralba Cirse Choy; 17984-R, criminal cases listed in the advertisement as pending against the
below tells all. If you know who the
for Estafa; Torralba Cirse R. R-43035
businessman alluded to in the caption. complainant had indeed been filed. It may have been
for Malicious Mischief. You will
Please do tells me and then, there is a
confirm that the same Cirse Torralba
photograph a reprint from Sun Star inconvenient for the complainant that these matters may have
and/or Choy Torralba and/or Cirse R.
publication. Do you confirm that?[76]
Torralba mentioned in this certificate been divulged, yet such information hardly falls within any realm
refer to your person?
xxx of privacy complainant could invoke, since the pendency of these
A: Yes.
Q: But is it true that you were arrested per this criminal charges are actually matters of public record.
Q: Now, aside from these criminal cases in the
photograph and I quote. In a plush
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, in
uptown hotel was disturbed by
The information, moreover, went into the very It cannot be helped if the commentary protected by the In ascertaining the degree of falsity that would
character and integrity of complainant to which his listening Bill of Rights is accompanied by excessive color or innuendo. constitute actual malice, the Court, citing New York Times, has
public has a very legitimate interest. Complainant hosts a public Certainly, persons in possession of truthful facts are not obliged even gone so far as acknowledging:
affairs program, one which he himself claimed was imbued with to present the same in bland fashion. These true facts may be
public character since it deals with corruptions in government, utilized to convince the listener/reader against a particular Even assuming that the contents of
the articles are false, mere error, inaccuracy or
corruptions by public officials, irregularities in government in position, or to even dissuade one against accepting the credibility even falsity alone does not prove actual malice.
comrades.[78] By entering into this line of work, complainant in of a public figure. Dry facts, by themselves, are hardly stirring. It is Errors or misstatements are inevitable in any
scheme of truly free expression and debate.
effect gave the public a legitimate interest in his life. He likewise the commentary thereupon that usually animates the discourse Consistent with good faith and reasonable care,
the press should not be held to account, to a
gave them a stake in finding out if he himself had the integrity and which is encouraged by the Constitution as integral to the
point of suppression, for honest mistakes or
character to have the right to criticize others for their conduct. democratic way of life. This is replete in many components of our imperfections in the choice of language. There
must be some room for misstatement of fact as
daily life, such as political addresses, televised debates, and even well as for misjudgment. Only by giving them
In convicting the defendants, the lower courts paid much leeway and tolerance can they
commercial advertisements.
particular heed to Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, which courageously and effectively function as critical
agencies in our democracy. In Bulletin
provides that every defamatory imputation is presumed to be As adverted earlier, the guarantee of free speech was Publishing Corp. v. Noel we held
malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable enacted to protect not only polite speech, but even expression in
A newspaper
motive for making it is shown. We hold that this provision, as its most unsophisticated form. Criminal libel stands as a necessary especially one national in
reach and coverage, should be
applied to public figures complaining of criminal libel, must be qualification to any absolutist interpretation of the free speech free to report on events and
construed in light of the constitutional guarantee of free clause, if only because it prevents the proliferation of untruths developments in which the
public has a legitimate
expression, and this Courts precedents upholding the standard of which if unrefuted, interest with minimum fear of
being hauled to court by one
actual malice with the necessary implication that a statement would gain an undue influence in the public discourse. But in
group or another on criminal
regarding a public figure if true is not libelous. The provision itself order to safeguard against fears that the public debate might be or civil charges for libel, so
long as the newspaper
allows for such leeway, accepting as a defense good intention and muted due to the reckless enforcement of libel laws, truth has respects and keeps within the
justifiable motive. The exercise of free expression, and its been sanctioned as a defense, much more in the case when the standards of morality and
civility prevailing within the
concordant assurance of commentary on public affairs and public statements in question address public issues or involve public general community.
figures, certainly qualify as justifiable motive, if not good figures.
intention. To avoid the self-censorship that
would necessarily accompany strict liability for
erroneous statements, rules governing liability
for injury to reputation are required to allow an
adequate margin of error by protecting some
inaccuracies. It is for the same reason that the
New York Times doctrine requires that liability DA REYNATO S. PUNO
for defamation of a public official or public NTE O. TINGA Associate Justice Associate Justice
figure may not be imposed in the absence of Chairman, Second Division
proof of "actual malice" on the part of the
person making the libelous statement.[79]
WE CONCUR:
intention to let the public know the character of their radio the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. in consultation before the case was assigned to the
commentator can at best be subsumed under the mantle of
Associate Justice Associate Justice
having been done with good motives and for justifiable ends. The writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.