Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Cebu City

SPECIAL NINETEENTH (19th) DIVISION

THE PEOPLE OF THE CA-G.R. CEB-CR NO. 02233

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Members:
DELOS SANTOS, Chairperson,
-versus- CONTRERAS, and
PEREZ,* JJ.
LEO A. LASTIMOSA,
Accused-Appellant. Promulgated:
_July 27, 2016
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION

DELOS SANTOS, J. :

Before this Court is an appeal from the 30 August 2013

Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14 in Cebu City (RTC)
which convicted accused-appellant Leo A. Lastimosa (accused-
appellant) for the crime of libel.

The factual antecedents reveal that on 12 August 2010, an

Information was filed before the RTC charging the accused-appellant
with libel as follows:

“That on or about the 29th day of June 2007, in the City of

Cebu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, with evident purpose of impeaching the
virtue, honesty, integrity and reputation of the person of
GWENDOLYN F. GARCIA, the Governor of the Province of Cebu, a
[C]ebuana woman, mother and grandmother and with malicious
intent of exposing her to public contempt and ridicule did then and
* Third Member in lieu of J. Macaraig who had previously inhibited, as per raffle dated 3 March 2016.
CA-GR CEB-CR No. 02233 Page 2 of 24
Decision
x----------------------x
there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously compose, prepare, write,
publish and cause to be composed, prepared, written and published
in the 29th day of June, 2007 issue of The Freeman, a newspaper of
general and public circulation throughout the Visayas area, printed
and published in Cebu City, the contents of which are in the column
“Arangkada” and are herein set forth as follows:

“Si Doling Kawatan”

Si Doling lab-asera. Kansang kinabuhi kalit lang

nausab kalit lang nadako and iyang bay. Kalit lang
nadaghan and iyang mga sakyanan. Kalit lang
nanguhong ang iyang kabtangan. Kalit lang nilapad and
iyang mga patigayon. Sa laktod, mora siyang nakadaug
sa lotto.

Nga maoy iyang gisulti sa nanguryosong mga

silingan. Apan way nituo niya. Way gidungog nga
nakadaug ug lotto sa ilang dapit. Bisan ang labing ungo
sa sugal wa kapanimaho nga may silingan silang
nakatsamba, o bisan nakapingis na lang ug pila ka digits.

Maong si Doling gihabolan sa sabaw nga mga

pagduda. Diin man gyud gikan ang dako niyang kwarta?

Tungod sa iyang katigayonan si Doling sayon rang

nakadaog pagka Barangay kapitan.

Bisan giprotestahang iyang kadaogan way

nakapugong sa iyang paglingkod sa katungdanan. Nga
maoy nakapatumaw sa tinuod niyang batasan.

Daan nang gikaintapan ang iyang kayawyawan sa

labasera pa. Apan way nakapangandam sa kapintas
niyang mamanghag dinhang nakatumpi nag kuwarta.
Labaw nang way nakahibawo unsaon pagsagang ang
binaboy niyang kasaba, nga di makaon bisan sa irong
buang, dihang nakahupot na ug gahom sa politika.

Maong dihang nipasumbingay ang usa niya ka

silingan nga kinawat ang iyang katigayonan morang kilat
sa udtong tutok ang kabangis sa pag-ulbo ni Doling.
CA-GR CEB-CR No. 02233 Page 3 of 24
Decision
x----------------------x
Gikunis-kunis dayon niya ang nangahas sa
pagpadayag og pagduda sa iyang kaligdong. Ginganlan
niya og mga ngan, sa makantalitahong mga pung
gipakauwawan, gipalihok ang tanang mga turutot aron
mabuong an[g] kadung[g]anan ug masuk-anong nipasaka
pa gyod ug kaso sa hukmanon.

Ang iyang mga saop ug mga binatonan, nga maoy

iyang gidudahang nanabi sa gipanghimaraot nga silingan
wa pasayloa sa iyang kabagis. Gipanglungkab ang ilang
personal nga kabtanan, gihulgang ipanglabay ngadto sa
labing layo niyang mga baboyan ug gawas nga
tangtangon sa trabaho bahala na kon ang ilang mga
pamilya ma[l]unosan sa gutom taralon pa gyud sa
hukmanan arong hingpit nga motagam.

***
Ang nasugmak nga silingan nagkapuliki sa panagang
sa iyang pagpanggukod. Inay pasidunggan sa iyang
pagpangita sa kamatuoran, ang iyang pribadong mga
negosyo giapil pag-utingkay kon duna bay bisan gamay
lang lama sa kahiwian. Mas makaluluoy hinuon an[g] wa
intawoy mga nahot niyang mga saop ug mga binatonan.

Ang tibuok kasilinganan gibati ug kalisang.

Nangahadlok bisan sa pagpalandong na lang sa kalbaryo
nga ilang tugpahan kon simbako silay maduhig sa iyang
kalampingasan. Maong bisan duna silay nah[i]baw-an ug
bisan sa kamapalabilabihon na sa iyang binuhatan, tak-
om nga [n]angiyugpos ang kadaghanan.

***

Dihang natino ang nagkuray na sa kahadlok ang

kinadaghan sa kasilingan nga wa nay mangisog
pagtabang sa pipila nga nibarug nga iya nang napiangan,
si Doling, sa labing mapahitas-ong tingog nga hinukad sa
nagdagtong niyang galamhan niangkon.

“Kawatan bitaw ko! May mahimo diay mo?”

Roughly translated to English, as follows:

CA-GR CEB-CR No. 02233 Page 4 of 24
Decision
x----------------------x
“Doling the thief”

Doling is a fish-monger, whose life suddenly

changed. Suddenly, her vehicles increased in numbers.
Like mushrooms, her property sprouted. Suddenly, her
business grew and widened. In short, it seemed she won
the lotto grand prize.
That's the story she told her inquisitive neighbors.
But none of them believed her. Nobody heard that there
was a lotto grand prize winner in their area. Even the
inveterate gamblers have not heard of a neighbor getting
lucky, or even one who won a minor prize.
That is why Doling was blanketed with widespread
suspicion. Where did her huge money really came (sic)
from?
***
Due to her wealth, Doling easily won as Barangay
captain.
Even if her election was contested, nobody was able
to stop her from assuming office. This led to her true
character to surface.
Her being a loudmouth was known when she was
yet a fish-monger. But nobody was prepared for her
abrasiveness when she already amassed wealth. More so
nobody else knew how to shield themselves from her
scathing tirades, which even a mad dog could not
swallow, when she already held political power.
That is why when a neighbor insinuated that her
wealth was ill-gotten, Doling viciously erupted like a
lightning strike at high noon.
***
Immediately, the person who had the nerve to cast a
doubt as to her integrity was vilified: She called him
names, she shamed him by the use of insulting terms,
she mobilized all her subordinates to save her reputation
and angrily, she filed a case in court.
Her own tenants and helpers, whom she suspected
of squealing to her hated neighbor, was not spared from
her cruelty: Their personal belongings were forcibly pried
open, they were threatened to be banished to the
farthest swine farm, and aside from being threatened
with termination without any concern that their families
CA-GR CEB-CR No. 02233 Page 5 of 24
Decision
x----------------------x
would suffer from hunger, they would also be hailed to
court so that they would really learn their lesson.
***
The neighbor concerned got rattled defending
himself from her harassment. Instead of being
commended in his search for truth, his private business
was even scrutinized for every imaginable fault or
wrongdoing. More pitiable is the situation of the poor
tenants and helpers.
The whole neighborhood felt fear. Afraid even to
contemplate the calvary they will experience if, god
forbid, they will be the object of her cruelty. Thus, even if
they know something, and even with her cruel excesses,
the majority chose to keep silent.
***
When majority of the neighborhood were already
fear stricken, and nobody was brave enough to voice
support for the few who stood up but already emaciated,
Doling, in a supremely arrogant voice brought about by
her unbridled power, admitted:
Yes, I am indeed a thief! Can anybody do anything
about it?

and through the aforequoted imputations, had thus attributed to her

the commission of a vice, defects and/or acts, condition, status or
circumstances which have undermined her integrity and caused her
dishonor and discredit, to the damage and prejudice of said
GWENDOLYN F. GARCIA.”1

In its Order dated 25 August 2010, the RTC found probable

cause against the accused-appellant and accordingly issued a warrant
of arrest, fixing the latter's bail bond at Php10,000.2

Subsequently, the accused-appellant filed the required cash bail

bond which prompted the RTC to order his provisional release. 3

On 15 October 2010, the accused-appellant was arraigned

wherein he pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. 4
1 Record, Information, pp. 1-5.
2 Id., p. 56.
3 Id., pp. 62-63.
4 Id., pp. 65-66.
CA-GR CEB-CR No. 02233 Page 6 of 24
Decision
x----------------------x
During pre-trial, the parties stipulated, among others, regarding
the following facts:

1) That the accused-appellant is a tri-media practitioner who

has a regular opinion column (“Arangkada”) in the Freeman, a Cebu-
based daily newspaper;
2) That the accused-appellant also has a radio commentary
show from 6 to 10 a.m., Monday to Friday, aired over DYAB, an AM
band radio station of ABS-CBN;
3) For television, the accused-appellant is a daily anchor of a
news program (“TV Patrol-Central Visayas”) from 6-7 p.m. aired
locally over Channel 3 by ABS-CBN;
4) On 29 June 2007, the Freeman published in the opinion
column (“Arangkada”) an article written by the accused-appellant
entitled “Si Doling Kawatan”;
5) Private complainant, Gwendolyn F. Garcia, is presently the
incumbent Governor of the Province of Cebu, serving her third
consecutive term;
6) At the time the said article was published, private
complainant was also the Governor of the Province of Cebu then
serving the penultimate date of her first term;
7) That the accused-appellant herein is the same person who
wrote the subject article “Si Doling Kawatan”;
8) That the private complainant, Honorable Governor
Gwendolyn F. Garcia, had proclaimed the accused-appellant as the
pride of Cebu in the field of media, for the year 2006 by granting him
the most prestigious Garbo sa Sugbo Award;
9) That it is a matter of public knowledge that Governor
Gwendolyn F. Garcia of the Province of Cebu had never been a fish-
monger; and
10) That is likewise a matter of public knowledge that
Governor Garcia had not been a Barangay Captain of any barangay in
the country.5

Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

5 Id., pp. 89-90.

CA-GR CEB-CR No. 02233 Page 7 of 24
Decision
x----------------------x
According to the prosecution, the accused-appellant had been a
constant and vocal critic of the private complainant, then first term
Governor of the Province of Cebu (Garcia), and because of the
former's malicious imputations against the latter, Garcia had filed a
criminal complaint for libel due to the accused-appellant's Arangkada
column published on 14 April 2007 in The Freeman. Apart from the
criminal charge, Garcia had also filed a civil case for abuse of right
against the accused-appellant. Subsequently, on 29 June 2007, the
accused-appellant published in his Arangkada column the defamatory
article “Si Doling Kawatan” which, through allegory and metaphor
represented in the character Doling, depicted Garcia as a thief as well
as a vindictive, ill-tempered, foul-mouthed and cruel person. Garcia
claimed that the accused-appellant's depictions of her in the article
are false and defamatory allegations designed to cause dishonor and
discredit to her name and reputation as the Governor, and as a
Cebuana woman, mother and grandmother.6 Accordingly, she filed
the present case for libel. In support of the prosecution's charge, the
following witnesses were presented: 1) Glenn Baricuatro (Baricuatro);
2) Atty. Pacheco Seares; and 3) Garcia herself.

On the other hand, the accused-appellant maintained that the

subject article was merely a work of fiction in the third person
narration form. Insisting that he has committed himself to the highest
degree of professionalism, integrity and excellence in his work, he
asserted that contrary to the prosecution's belief, the character
Doling did not refer to Garcia since the personal circumstances and
attributes of Doling are different from Garcia's. 7 He consequently
argued that he cannot be convicted for libel absent clear
identification of Garcia as the subject of the article. To substantiate
his defense, the accused-appellant himself took the witness stand, as
well as Atty. Democrito Barcenas.

6 Id., Sworn Statement, Exhibit “QQ”, Offer of Exhibits Folder, pp. 45-48.
7 Id., Judicial Affidavit, Exhibit “1”, Offer of Exhibits Folder, pp. 57-60.
CA-GR CEB-CR No. 02233 Page 8 of 24
Decision
x----------------------x
For their documentary evidence, the prosecution formally
offered Exhibits “A” to “RR”8 while the defense submitted Exhibits “1”
to “2” with submarkings.9

On 30 August 2013, the RTC rendered judgment convicting the

accused-appellant in this wise:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is

hereby rendered finding accused LEO A. LASTIMOSA, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of LIBEL and sentences him to a penalty of
FINE of SIX THOUSAND PERSOS (sic) with SUBSIDIARY
IMPRISONMENT in case of INSOLVENCY.

Accused is, likewise, ordered to pay private complainant, (Ex)

Governor GWENDOLYN F. GARCIA the amount of TWO
MILLION (Php2,000,000.00 for and as moral damages.

Finally, accused is ordered to pay the costs of these

proceedings.

SO ORDERED.”10

Aggrieved, the accused-appellant filed the present appeal

insisting on his innocence. Questioning the credibility of Garcia's
witness, Baricuatro, he pointed out that Baricuatro's testimony should
have been scrutinized and evaluated in detail considering his interest
and bias in favor of Garcia, he being a relative and member of the
latter's official family. He also challenged the admissibility of the out-
of-court statements of the nine (9) students of Atty. Seares who had
allegedly identified Garcia from the subject article. He contended that
these students' statements were pure hearsay since he was not
afforded the opportunity to examine these declarants. He further
claimed that contrary to the trial court's ruling, his article “ Si Doling
Kawatan” did not refer to Garcia since Garcia's name or her life is not
specifically mentioned or described therein. Neither do Doling's
personal circumstances (e.g. having been a fish-monger, being

8 Id., pp. 176-181.

9 Id., pp. 212-215.
10 Id., p. 257.
CA-GR CEB-CR No. 02233 Page 9 of 24
Decision
x----------------------x
elected as barangay captain) or her characteristics refer to Garcia. He
insisted that the character “Doling” is merely an emblematic synthesis
of his observations on people's peculiarities and idiosyncrasies
without reference to a particular person. Since there is no specific
person identified or identifiable from the questioned article, he
maintained that there is no clear and convincing evidence to prove
his guilt for libel. Moreover, he questioned the court a quo's failure to
rule on the prosecution's formal offer of documentary exhibits prior to
its rendition of judgment. He asserted that while he admitted the
existence of the newspaper clippings (Exhibits “C” to “PP”), he did
not admit the relevance of those clippings to the facts in issue or the
allegations in the Information. Thus, he claimed that the RTC should
have made a proper ruling before judgment to enable the defense to
interpose its objections to the admissibility of the said exhibits. In
view of the foregoing, the accused-appellant prayed that his acquittal
be granted.

The focal issue herein is whether or not the RTC gravely erred
in convicting the accused-appellant for the crime of libel.

The Court rules in the negative.

Defamation, which includes libel and slander, means the

offense of injuring a person's character, fame or reputation through
false and malicious statements. It is that which tends to injure
reputation or to diminish esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in
the plaintiff, or to excite derogatory feelings or opinions about the
plaintiff. It is the publication of anything that is injurious to the good
name or reputation of another or tends to bring him into disrepute. 11
Consequently, for an imputation to be libelous under Article 353 of
the Revised Penal Code, the following requisites must be present: (a)
it must be defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be given

11 Yuchengco vs. Manila Chronicle Publishing Corp., G.R. No. 184315, 25 November 2009, citing MVRS
Publications, Inc. vs. Islamic Da'wah Council of the Phils., Inc., 444 Phil. 230, 241 (2004).
CA-GR CEB-CR No. 02233 Page 10 of 24
Decision
x----------------------x
publicity; and (d) the victim must be identifiable. 12 Absent one of
these elements precludes the commission of the crime of libel. 13

After a judicious scrutiny of the testimonial and documentary

evidence on record, the Court finds these four requisites to be
present in this case.

Anent the first requisite, jurisprudence teaches that an

allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes to a person the
commission of a crime, the possession of a vice or defect, real or
imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance
which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt or which
tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead. "In determining
whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are to be
construed in their entirety and should be taken in their plain, natural
and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by
persons reading them, unless it appears that they were used and
understood in another sense."14

Based on these standards, the Court holds that the accused-

appellant's article “Si Doling Kawatan” is defamatory because it tends
to incite suspicion that Garcia, depicted in the character of Doling, is
a thief and a corrupt public official who cruelly abuses her power,
which is an imputation of a vice, condition or status that is
dishonorable and contemptible. By portraying Garcia, through the
character of Doling, as a vindictive, mean and dishonest government
officer who admitted plundering public funds, the accused-appellant
had cast aspersions on the character, integrity and reputation of
Garcia as the elected Governor and exposed her to public ridicule or
contempt.15 Significantly, jurisprudence has laid down a test to
determine the defamatory character of words used in the following
manner:

12 Almendras, Jr. vs. Almendras, G.R. No. 179491, 14 January 2015, citing Diaz vs. People, 551 Phil. 192
(2007).
13 Lopez vs. People, G.R. No. 172203, 14 February 2011.
14 Lagaya vs. People, G.R. No. 176251, 25 July 2012, citing Buatis, Jr. vs. People, infra..
15 See Buatis, Jr. vs. People, G.R. No. 142509, 24 March 2006.
CA-GR CEB-CR No. 02233 Page 11 of 24
Decision
x----------------------x
"Words calculated to induce suspicion are sometimes more
effective to destroy reputation than false charges directly made.
Ironical and metaphorical language is a favored vehicle for slander. A
charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the
hearers to suppose and understand that the person or
persons against whom they were uttered were guilty of
certain offenses, or are sufficient to impeach their honesty,
virtue, or reputation, or to hold the person or persons up to
public ridicule...."16 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

This test is certainly satisfied in the case at bar. Even an

impartial mind reading these descriptions would be led to entertain
doubts on the subject person's character, thereby negatively affecting
her reputation.

The second element of malice has also been established herein,

considering that the defamatory article does not constitute privileged
communication. Although the law presumes that every imputation is
malicious which is referred to as malice in law, there are instances
where this is inapplicable. Article 354 states that malice is not
presumed in the following cases: (1) a private communication made
by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or
social duty; and (2) a fair and true report, made in good faith,
without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other
official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any
statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any
other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their
functions. Jurisprudence supplements this enumeration by holding
that fair commentaries on matters of public interest as well as the
remarks directed against a public figure, are likewise privileged. 17

Unfortunately, none of these exceptions exist in the present

case. While Garcia is indeed a public figure being then the Provincial
Governor, the accused-appellant's article cannot be considered a fair
and true report or commentaries of matters of public interest since it
16 Sazon vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120715, 29 March 1996, citing Lacsa v. Intermediate Appellate
Court, 161 SCRA 427 (1988).
17 Co vs. Muñoz, Jr., G.R. No. 181986, 4 December 2013, citing Art. 354 (2), Revised Penal Code; Borjal
vs. Court of Appeals, infra. and Guingguing vs. Court of Appeals, 508 Phil. 193 (2005).
CA-GR CEB-CR No. 02233 Page 12 of 24
Decision
x----------------------x
contained no reference whatsoever on Garcia's performance as then
Governor but attacked solely her private character. The vices and
defects imputed to Garcia as depicted in Doling's personality, such as
her corrupt and cruel nature, and her foul and arrogant disposition,
are definitely subjects which are completely disconnected to Garcia's
governmental duties. Thus, the subject article does not fall under the
protective coverage of privileged communication. As aptly held in
Sazon vs. Court of Appeals, any attack upon the private character of
the public officer on matters which are not related to the discharge of
their official functions may constitute libel.18

Moreover, the circumstances under which the subject article

was published by the accused-appellant bolsters the inference that
the accused-appellant was motivated by revenge or ill will towards
Garcia due to the latter's filing of both civil and criminal cases against
the former on account of his negative articles and commentaries
against the latter. Furthermore, the descriptions of Doling used in the
assailed article to refer to Garcia were mostly uncalled for, strongly
sending the message that the accused-appellant's purpose was to
incite doubts or mistrust in the readers' minds and ultimately cause
injury or discredit to the name and reputation of Garcia. This is
certainly indicative of malice on the part of the accused-appellant. It
is worthy to note that the existence of malice in fact may be shown
by extrinsic evidence that the defendant bore a grudge against the
offended party, or that there was rivalry or ill-feeling between them
which existed at the date of the publication of the defamatory
imputation or that the defendant had an intention to injure the
reputation of the offended party as shown by the words used and the
circumstances attending the publication of the defamatory
imputation,19 as in this case.

Regarding the third element of publication, the same is readily

apparent from the evidence. It is undisputed that the article “ Si
Doling Kawatan” was published on 29 June 2007 in the accused-
18 Sazon vs. Court of Appeals, supra., citing Reyes, Luis B., The Revised Penal Code, Book Two,
Thirteenth Edition, pp. 861-862 which, in turn, cited People vs. Del Fierro and Padilla, C.A. GR No. 3599-
R, 27 July 1950.
19 Ibid.
CA-GR CEB-CR No. 02233 Page 13 of 24
Decision
x----------------------x
appellant's regular Arangkada column in The Freeman. This particular
fact was agreed upon by the parties during pre-trial, as evidenced by
the stipulated facts narrated in the Pre-Trial Order. 20

With respect to the last element, jurisprudence holds that

defamatory words must refer to an ascertained or ascertainable
person, and that person must be the plaintiff, 21 or the private
complainant herein. The accused-appellant, however, raises the
defense that his article “Si Doling Kawatan” did not refer to Garcia
since no mention of Garcia's name was made therein and neither did
the description of Doling in that article correspond to the personal
circumstances of Garcia. On this score, the Honorable Supreme Court
has elucidated that while it is essential that the victim be identifiable
in order to maintain a libel suit, it is not necessary that the person be
named. It is enough if by intrinsic reference the allusion is apparent
or if the publication contains matters of description or reference to
facts and circumstances from which others reading the article may
know the person alluded to, or if the latter is pointed out by
extraneous circumstances so that those knowing such person could
and did understand that he was the person referred to. Kunkle vs.
Cablenews-American and Lyons laid the rule that this requirement is
complied with where a third person recognized or could identify the
party vilified in the article.22

In this case, this requirement is satisfied by the testimony of

Baricuatro, a third person apart from the private complainant, who
had recognized and had sufficiently identified Garcia as the one
depicted in the character of Doling. In his Sworn Statement,
Baricuatro credibly explained how he arrived at this conclusion, thus:

“12. Did the subject article named (sic) Governor Garcia?

A: She was not directly named. The principal character in the

said article was named “Doling”.
20 Record, p. 89.
21 Yuchengco vs. Manila Chronicle Publishing Corp., supra. citing Corpus vs. Cuaderno, Sr., G.R. No. L-
16969, 30 April 1966, 16 SCRA 807, 816.
22 Diaz vs. People, G.R. No. 159787, 25 May 2007 citing Borjal vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126466,
14 January 1999, 301 SCRA 1; Kunkle vs. Cablenews-American and Lyons, 42 Phil. 757 (1922).
CA-GR CEB-CR No. 02233 Page 14 of 24
Decision
x----------------------x
13. If being so the case, what made you state that the said
article depicted Governor Garcia as a thief, corrupt, arrogant,
vindictive, ill-tempered, foul-mouthed and cruel?

A: Knowing the parties and circumstances, it was easy to

conclude that said article was directly aimed at Governor Garcia.

14. Can you further explain this?

A: First and foremost, during this time, Mr. Lastimosa had a

fixation on Governor Garcia. Almost every weekday, his Arangkada
radio program would be devoted to raising issues against Governor
Garcia. It seems that only the known critics and/or political opponents
of Governor Garcia can be a guest of the said radio program. The
same anti-Governor Gwen Garcia issues also see print in his
Arangkada newspaper opinion column. By the way, the name “Doling”
is nothing but a cheeky play on Governor Garcia's first name –
GWENDOLYN. Further, Doling's imputed vices or defects (i.e. corrupt,
arrogant, vindictive, ill-tempered, foul-mouthed, and cruel) are the
very same vices or defects that Mr. Lastimosa repeatedly imputed or
alluded to the person of Governor Garcia.”23 (underscoring supplied)

Nevertheless, the accused-appellant challenges the credibility of

Baricuatro as a reliable witness in view of the latter's purported bias
in favor of Garcia, considering his relationship to the latter.
Unfortunately, the consistent rule is that relationship by itself does
not give rise to a presumption of bias or ulterior motive, nor does it
ipso facto diminish the credibility or tarnish the testimony of a
witness.24 A witness is said to be biased when his relation to the
cause or to the parties is such that he has an incentive to exaggerate
or give false color to his statements, or to suppress or to pervert the
truth, or to state what is false. To warrant rejection of the testimony
of a relative or friend, it must be clearly shown that, independently of
the relationship, the testimony was inherently improbable or
defective, or that improper or evil motives had moved the witness to

23 Record, Exhibit “RR”, Offer of Exhibits Folder, p. 49.

24 Ilisan vs. People, G.R. No. 179487, 15 November 2010, citing People vs. Quilang, 371 Phil. 241, 255
(1999); People vs. Villanueva, 362 Phil. 17, 34 (1999).
CA-GR CEB-CR No. 02233 Page 15 of 24
Decision
x----------------------x
incriminate the accused falsely.25 Regrettably, in this case, the
accused-appellant has not sufficiently shown such bias.

In any event, the fact that Baricuatro is well acquainted with

Garcia will not defeat the substance of his testimony. In the old case
of Worcester vs. Ocampo which also involved a libel case, the
Honorable Supreme Court significantly ruled:

Mr. Odgers, in his work on Libel and Slander (p. 567), says:

"The plaintiff may also call at the trial his friends or others
acquainted with the circumstances, to state that, in reading the libel,
they at once concluded it was aimed at the plaintiff. It is not
necessary that all the world should understand the libel. It is
sufficient if those who know the plaintiff can make out that
he is the person meant." (See also Falkard's Stockey on Libel and
Slander, 4th English edition, 589.)

The correctness of this rule is not only established by the

weight of authority but is supported by every consideration of justice
and sound policy. The lower court committed no error in admitting the
opinion of witnesses offered during the trial of the cause. One's
reputation is the sum or composite of the impressions spontaneously
made by him from time to time, and in one way or another, upon his
neighbors and acquaintances. The effect of a libelous publication
upon the understanding of such persons, involving
necessarily the identity of the person libeled is of the very
essence of the wrong. The issue in a libel case concerns not
only the sense of the publication, but, in a measure its effect
upon a reader acquainted with the person referred to. xxx xxx
xxx.”26 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In the case at bar, Baricuatro was admittedly familiar with

Garcia and was knowledgeable about the issues and strained
relations between the parties, he having served in the Provincial
Government from July 2004 to March 2008. His statements,

25 Tarapen vs. People, G.R. No. 173824, 28 August 2008, citing People vs. Ulgasan, 390 Phil. 763, 778
(2000); People vs. Daen, Jr., 314 Phil. 280, 291 (1995).
26 Worcester vs. Ocampo, G.R. No. 5932, 27 February 1912, 022 Phil. 42, citing Enquirer Co. vs.
Johnston, 72 Fed. Rep., 443; 2nd Greenleaf on Evidence, 417; Nelson vs. Barchenius, 52 Ill., 236; Smith vs.
Miles, 15 Vt., 245; Miller vs. Butler, 6 Cushing (Mass.), 71.
CA-GR CEB-CR No. 02233 Page 16 of 24
Decision
x----------------------x
therefore, hold material weight. Considering that Baricuatro's
testimony is positive, straightforward and consistent, the Court is
inclined to give his testimony credence. Settled is the rule that when
there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive
why the prosecution witnesses should testify falsely against the
accused or implicate him in a serious offense, their testimonies
deserve full faith and credit.27

In light of Baricuatro's credible testimony, the Court concurs

with the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) that the accused-
appellant's objection to the trial court's appreciation of the out-of-
court statements of Atty. Seares' students, is irrelevant herein. 28

On this point, it may not be amiss to mention the

jurisprudential rule that when the credibility of a witness is in issue,
the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies
of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof,
as well as its conclusions anchored on the findings are accorded high
respect, if not conclusive effect. 29 The Court has carefully reviewed
the testimonial and documentary evidence on record and finds no
cogent reason to depart from this rule.

The Court is further convinced that the character Doling

depicted in the accused-appellant's article refers to Garcia, in view of
the corroborative evidence existing on record which supports this
conclusion. In this case, while Garcia's name was not expressly stated
in the assailed article, the following circumstances mentioned therein
ultimately make the object ascertainable: 1) the main character in
the article is named Doling which conspicuously sounds similar to and
is easily connectible with the first name of Garcia, Gwen dolyn; 2)
Doling is an elected public official, just like Garcia; 3) Doling had
filed a case in court against the person who had questioned her
integrity, not unlike Garcia who had also filed both civil and criminal
27 People vs. Sorila, Jr., G.R. No. 178540, 27 June 2008, citing People vs. Degamo, 450 Phil. 159, 175
(2003); and People vs. Caritativo, 451 Phil. 741, 762 (2003).
28 Rollo, Brief for the Appellee, p. 146.
29 People vs. Zabala, G.R. No. 203087, 23 November 2015, citing People vs. Adallom, 683 Phil. 618, 637
(2012).
CA-GR CEB-CR No. 02233 Page 17 of 24
Decision
x----------------------x
cases against the accused-appellant in connection with the latter's
criticisms against her;30 and 4) Doling is portrayed as a loud-
mouthed, foul-tempered, corrupt, abusive, vindictive and cruel
person—descriptions which the accused-appellant had particularly
associated with or referred to Garcia in his previous articles. All these
circumstances point to Garcia as the person referred to in the
defamatory article.31

In People vs. Silvela, the High Court relevantly held:

“Nevertheless, it may be added that the obnoxious writing need

not mention the libeled party by name (Causin vs. Jakosalem, 5 Phil.,
155) the prosecution being permitted to prove by evidence
that a vague or general imputation of dishonorable conduct
referred to the complainant or complainants. In one of the most
famous libel cases, an editorial about "Birds of Prey," criticising "man,
who besides being eagles, having the characteristics of the vulture,
the owl and the vampire, etc. etc.," was held to be libelous
notwithstanding its having failed to identify the aggrieved
parties; because proof aliunde showed that it referred to
them. (Worcester vs. Ocampo, 22 Phil., 42.)” 32 (emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

In this case, the Court takes into consideration the accused-

appellant's previous articles (Exhibits “C” to “PP”) which, if evaluated
together, will readily link the character Doling to Garcia. A careful
comparison of these previous articles vis-a-vis the subject defamatory
article herein reveals that the accused-appellant had described or
imputed to Garcia certain traits, vices or circumstances which are
similar if not identical to Doling's character, to wit:

(1) Loud-mouthed and foul-tempered - “ Daan nang gikaintapan

ang iyang kayawyawan sa lab-asera pa. Apan way
nakapangandam sa kapintas niyang mamanghag dihang
nakatumpi nag kuwarta. Labaw nang way nakahibawo unsaon
pagsagang ang binaboy niyang kasaba, nga di makaon bisan

30 TSN, 14 December 2012, p. 13.

31 See Corpus vs. Cuaderno, Sr., G.R. No. L-16969, 30 April 1966.
32 People vs. Silvela, G.R. L-10610, 26 May 1958.
CA-GR CEB-CR No. 02233 Page 18 of 24
Decision
x----------------------x
sa irong buang, dihang nakahupot na og gahom sa politika.” (Si
Doling Kawatan, The Freeman, 29 June 2007)
a) “Hinaot nga di sila binabuyon og kasaba ni Gobernador
Gwen Garcia nga mga way gugma sa usa ka nagkahiusang Sugbo.”
(Kalang-og sa Mandaue, The Freeman, 9 November 2006)33

b) “Nga nabantang lang sa mga kawani ug mga opisyal sa

Kapitolyo ug sa pipila ka gidemalas niyang mga bisita nga nakaatol
pagsaksi sa pag-ulbo sa iyang kasuko ug nakatilaw sa iyang
kasaba nga di makaon bisan sa irong buang.” (Lain Niyang
Sakit, The Freeman, 21 February 2007).34

c) “Ang naandan niyang kasabaan kalit lang nga napawong.

Sa iyang pagpangunay...iya ang tanang yawyaw; gawas nga
iyang gibinaboy og kasaba ang mga sakop sa media nga nanaway
sa CICC...ang makaluluoy'ng mga trabahante wa sab pasayloa sa
kala' sa iyang dila, maoy hinungdan nga puwerte niyang pagawa
tungod sa binuntagay nga paggahot ug pagpanginsulto ginamit
ang megaphone.” (Paugat ni Gwen, The Freeman, 14 April 2007). 35

(2) Insinuation of graft and corruption as well as abuse of power and

arrogance or feeling of superiority - “Maong dihang nipasumbingay
ang usa niya ka silingan nga kinawat ang iyang katigayonan,
morang kilat sa udtong tutok ang kabangis sa pag-ulbo ni Doling. xxx
xxx xxx. Dihang natino nga nagkuray na sa kahadlok ang kinabag-an
sa kasilinganan, nga wa nay mangisog pagtabang sa pipila nga
nibarug nga iya nang napiangan, si Doling, sa labing mapahitas-
ong tingog nga hinukad sa nagdagtom niyang galamhan,
niangkon: “Kawatan bitaw ko! May mahimo diay mo?” (Si
Doling Kawatan, The Freeman, 29 June 2007)

a) Apan inanay nang naklaro nga mahimong nisimang ug

nakapaburot sa pribadong mga bulsa ang binilyon ka pesos
nga gipabaha alang sa summit. (Una ug barato, The Freeman, 8
February 2007)36

b) Apan lahi ang tahas ni Garcia: Ang pagtagbaw sa iyang way

kinutoban nga gugma sa salapi ginamit ang mga luna nga sayon ra

33 Record, Exhibit “C”, Offer of Exhibits Folder, p. 3.

34 Id., Exhibit “W”, Offer of Exhibits Folder, p. 23.
35 Id., Exhibit “JJ”, Offer of Exhibits Folder, p. 36.
36 Id., Exhibit “S”, Offer of Exhibits Folder, p. 19.
CA-GR CEB-CR No. 02233 Page 19 of 24
Decision
x----------------------x
niyang nakalimtan nga di iya kon dili ila sa mga Sugbuanon (Budhi sa
Kasaysayan, The Freeman, 23 February 2007)37

c) Ang pag ulbo sa eskandalo sa papating nga overpricing sa

decorative ug street lamps sa 12 th ASEAN Summit maoy nakabisto
sa kataphaw sa lusot sa mga kurakot nga igo nang pasidunggan
nato sila sa kalamposan sa summit ug di na lang pangitaan sa ilang
obligasyon paghimog kuwentada. xxx xxx xxx. Nalutsan ta sa
minilyon ka pesos nga anomaliya sa mga suga ug sa uban pang
mga proyekto nga hangtod karon wa pa matarung sa pagsusi,
salamat sa padayong pagtago nilang Garcia ug ubang mga
tigpasiugda sa mahinungdanong mga dokumento. (Singil sa
CICC, The Freeman, 16 April 2007)38

d) “Kon wa pa mong kabantay, kong patuyangan sa iyang

gibati si Gobernador Garcia, nahadlok ko nga sayop ang tibuok
kalibotan ug siya ug iya rang mga abogado ang sakto. Maong
may sukaranan nga magkurog sa kahadlok ang ubang mga
nagpuyo sa mga luna sa lalawigan.” (Siya ray sakto, The Freeman, 30
December 2006)39

(3) Vindictive and cruel - “Gikunis-kunis dayon niya ang nangahas sa

pagpadayag og pagduda sa iyang kaligdong: Ginganlan niya ug mga
ngan, sa makantalitang mga pung gipakauwawan, gipalihok ang
tanang mga turutot aron mabuong ang kadungganan ug masuk-
anong nipasaka pa gyod ug kaso sa hukmanan . Ang iyang
mga saop ug mga binatonan, nga maoy iyang gidudahang
nanabi sa gipanghimarot nga silingan, wa pasayloa sa iyang
kabagis: Gipanglungkab ang ilang personal nga kabtangan,
gihulgang ipanglabay ngadot sa labing layo niyang mga baboyan ug
gawas nga tangtangon sa trabaho bahala na kon ang ilang mga
pamilya malunosan sa gutom taralon pa gyud sa hukmanan aron
hingpit nga motagam.” (Si Doling Kawatan, The Freeman, 29 June
2007)

a) Siya ray nahibawo, ug busa siya ray magbuot , unsay

makiangayon nga komentaryo, kay way arang niya kinsay sunod
niyang ikiha, unsay mga kasong iyang ipasaka ug asang
korteha niya isang-at ang iyang mga demanda; xxx xxx xxx;
Kon manubag ang mga imbestigador sa mga pangutana sa media,

37 Id., Exhibit “Y”, Offer of Exhibits Folder, p. 25.

38 Id., Exhibit “KK”, Offer of Exhibits Folder, p. 37.
39 Id., Exhibit “M”, Offer of Exhibits Folder, p. 13.
CA-GR CEB-CR No. 02233 Page 20 of 24
Decision
x----------------------x
labi na kong moingon nga “Nakabantay na sila,” bantay lang sila sa
iyang dako ug lupad nga gahom kay mahimo niya silang
pahilumon ug ipaubos pa gyod sa preventive suspension .”
(Bantay lang sila, The Freeman, 1 May 2007)40

b) “Mao ni hinungdan nga siya karoy giimbestigar. Ug si

Santiago ang imbestigador. Di makatugot ang mabuot nga mga
Sugbuanon nga iyang gapuson si Santiago ug lawgawon ang
imbestigasyon pinaagi sa pagpasaka og mga kasong way
sukaranan.” (Tarantar na sila, The Freeman, 2 May 2007)41

c) “Human pakauwawi nga mga tapolan ug mga

mabudhion, pipila ka mga kawani nangreklamo nga
gipanglungkab ang ilang mga hunos ug gikatag ang ilang mga
dokumento sa sawog tungod lang sa pagduda nga silay
nanghatag og makadaot nga mga kasayuran ngadto sa mga
sakop sa media.” (Gubat sa Kapitolyo, The Freeman, 2 June 2007)
(emphasis and underscoring supplied) 42

Considering the foregoing, the Court is persuaded that Garcia's

identity was sufficiently ascertained or ascertainable as the libeled
party in the subject defamatory article.

Regarding the accused-appellant's objection to the newspaper

clippings marked as Exhibits “C” to “PP”, the Court finds his argument
untenable. The record shows that the aforesaid exhibits were
formally offered by the prosecution, 43 which the RTC subsequently
admitted into the record without prejudice to the accused-appellant's
comments thereto.44 Thereafter, the accused-appellant filed his
objections to the prosecution's formal offer wherein he expressly
admitted the existence of such newspaper clippings, 45 after which the
RTC noted his comments into the record. 46 Considering that these
newspaper clippings were formally offered as evidence and admitted
into the record with the accused-appellant even acknowledging their

40 Id., Exhibit “NN”, Offer of Exhibits Folder, p. 40.

41 Id., Exhibit “OO”, Offer of Exhibits Folder, p. 41.
42 Id., Exhibit “PP”, Offer of Exhibits Folder, pp. 43-44.
43 Id., Formal Offer (Documentary Evidence), pp. 177-179.
44 Id., RTC Order dated 22 August 2012, p. 183.
45 Id., Objections/Comments on Prosecution's Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits, p. 186.
46 Id., RTC Order dated 6 September 2012, p. 189.
CA-GR CEB-CR No. 02233 Page 21 of 24
Decision
x----------------------x
existence, the Court rules that the same may be used as evidence
against the accused-appellant to support the prosecution's claim that
the defamatory article referred to Garcia. The fact that the RTC did
not specifically rule on the accused-appellant's objections prior to
judgment will not necessarily devalue such newspaper clippings or
render the same inadmissible considering the accused-appellant's
recognition of the existence of such articles. As correctly argued by
the OSG, the fact that the trial court proceeded to render judgment
without ruling on the accused-appellant's comment/opposition to the
prosecution's formal offer of exhibits, is a clear indication that the
accused-appellant's opposition thereto was denied and the court can
then continue to promulgate its decision on the basis of all
documentary evidence that was properly offered and admitted as
part of the case record.47

In fine, the Court is morally convinced that the testimonial and

documentary evidence on record is sufficient to sustain the guilt of
the accused-appellant for libel. On this note, it must be emphasized
that while freedom of expression enjoys an exalted place in the
hierarchy of constitutional rights, this right "is not absolute for it may
be so regulated that [its exercise shall neither] be injurious to the
equal enjoyment of others having equal rights, nor injurious to the
rights of the community or society." According to jurisprudence, libel
stands as an exception to the enjoyment of that most guarded
constitutional right.48 Indeed, it must be borne in mind that the
freedom to express one's sentiments and belief does not grant one
the license to vilify in public the honor and integrity of another. Any
sentiments must be expressed within the proper forum and with
proper regard for the rights of others.49

With respect to the criminal liability imposed by the trial court,

the Court sustains the same pursuant to the ruling in Fermin vs.
People wherein the Honorable Supreme Court imposed the penalty of

47 Rollo, Brief for the Appellee, p. 145.

48 Lopez vs. People, supra. citing Primicias vs. Fugoso, 80 Phil. 71, 75 (1948).
49 Lucas vs. Sps. Royo, G.R. No. 136185, 30 October 2000, as cited in Soriano vs. Laguardia, G.R. Nos.
164785 & 165636, 29 April 2009.
CA-GR CEB-CR No. 02233 Page 22 of 24
Decision
x----------------------x
Php6,000 fine, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. 50
However, regarding the civil liability of the accused-appellant, the
Court finds the amount of Php2,000,000 (two million pesos) as moral
damages excessive under the circumstances and consequently
reduces the same to the more reasonable amount of Php500,000, in
accordance with the amount of moral damages similarly adjudged in
Fermin vs. People.51 It bears stressing that moral damages are not a
bonanza. They are given to ease the defendant's grief and
suffering.52 They are not intended to enrich the complainant at the
expense of the defendant. Rather, these are awarded only to enable
the injured party to obtain "means, diversions or amusements" that
will serve to alleviate the moral suffering that resulted by reason of
the defendant's culpable action. The purpose of such damages is
essentially indemnity or reparation, not punishment or correction. In
other words, the award thereof is aimed at a restoration within the
limits of the possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; therefore, it
must always reasonably approximate the extent of injury and be
proportional to the wrong committed.53 Hence, the reduction of the
moral damages is justifiable in this case.

In closing, the Court finds it fitting to cite herein the

pronouncement of the Honorable Supreme Court in Fermin vs.
People:

“We must however take this opportunity to likewise remind

media practitioners of the high ethical standards attached to and
demanded by their noble profession. The danger of an unbridled
irrational exercise of the right of free speech and press, that is, in
utter contempt of the rights of others and in willful disregard of the
cumbrous responsibilities inherent in it, is the eventual self-
destruction of the right and the regression of human society into a
veritable Hobbesian state of nature where life is short, nasty and
brutish. Therefore, to recognize that there can be no absolute
"unrestraint" in speech is to truly comprehend the quintessence of
50 Fermin vs. People, G.R. No. 157643, 28 March 2008 citing Administrative Circular No. 08-2008.
51 Ibid.
52 California Clothing, Inc. vs. Quiñones, G.R. No. 175822, 23 October 2013, citing Villanueva vs.
Rosqueta, G.R. No. 180764, 19 January 2010, 610 SCRA 334.
53 Lorzano vs. Tabayag, Jr., G.R. No. 189647, 6 February 2012, citing Solidbank Corp. vs. Spouses
Arrieta, 492 Phil. 95, 105 (2005).
CA-GR CEB-CR No. 02233 Page 23 of 24
Decision
x----------------------x
freedom in the marketplace of social thought and action, genuine
freedom being that which is limned by the freedom of others. If
there is freedom of the press, ought there not also be freedom
from the press? It is in this sense that self-regulation as
distinguished from self-censorship becomes the ideal mean for, as
Mr. Justice Frankfurter has warned, "[W]ithout . . . a lively sense of
responsibility, a free press may readily become a powerful
instrument of injustice.

Lest we be misconstrued, this is not to diminish nor constrict

that space in which expression freely flourishes and operates. For we
have always strongly maintained, as we do now, that freedom of
expression is man's birthright — constitutionally protected and
guaranteed, and that it has become the singular role of the press to
act as its "defensor fidei" in a democratic society such as ours. But
it is also worth keeping in mind that the press is the servant, not
the master, of the citizenry, and its freedom does not carry
with it an unrestricted hunting license to prey on the
ordinary citizen."54 (underscoring supplied)

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the appeal is

hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the Judgment of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 14 in Cebu City is hereby AFFIRMED
WITH MODIFICATION as to the amount of moral damages which is
reasonably reduced to Php500,000 herein. The rest of the court a
quo's ruling stands.

SO ORDERED.

Original Signed
EDGARDO L. DELOS SANTOS
Associate Justice
Chairperson

54 Fermin vs. People, supra., citing Borjal vs. Court of Appeals, supra.
CA-GR CEB-CR No. 02233 Page 24 of 24
Decision
x----------------------x
WE CONCUR:

Original Signed Original Signed

EDWARD B. CONTRERAS PABLITO A. PEREZ
Associate Justice Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court. (Sec. 5, Rule 8, RIRCA [a]).

Original Signed
EDGARDO L. DELOS SANTOS
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Special Nineteenth (19TH) Division