G.R. No.

128959
September 30, 2005
CIRIACO BOY GUINGUING
VS.
COURT OF APPEALS

ISSUE:
Whether or not the publication of the advertisement paid for by Lim and published
by Guingguing is libelous.

RULING:
The assailed resolution of the Court of Appeals dated July 29, 1996 and October
3, 1996 respectively are reversed and set aside. Petitioner is ACQUITTED of the
charge of libel.

FACTS:
On Oct. 13, 1991 Lim published a paid advertisement at the SUNDAY POST, a
weekly publication in Visayas and Mindanao, edited and published by
petitioner GUINGUING, containing pictures of arrests made and records of
criminal cases filed against CISER TORRALBA.
CISER TORRALBA is a radio broadcast journalist of DYLA and DYFX based in
Cebu city.
TORRALBA filed a complaint against LIM and GUINGUING asserting that the
paid advertisement was libelous and sought for damages against LIM and the
petitioner.
LIM claimed that TORRALBA made defamatory attacks against him and his
family over his radio programs, so he opted for paid advertisement to answer
his attacks.
After the trial, the lower court concluded that the publication in question was
indeed libelous.
In the appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTCs decision and modified
the penalty imposed.
Petitioner sought for the reversal of the decision by the CA with the Supreme
Court, contending that as a publisher and a member of the press, the decision
of the lower courts of the complaint against him constitutes an infringement of
his constitutional right to freedom of speech and of the press.
In the re-examination of the evidences and contentions of the petitioner, it has
been established that the pieces of information in said publication/
advertisement were indeed actually true.
 Actual malice is not proven in the publication of the advertisement
TORRALBA is a public figure.

SUPREME COURT:
To this end, the publication of the advertisement by petitioner and LIM
cannot be deemed by this Court to have been done with actual malice. Aside from
the fact that the information contained in the said publication was true, the
intention to let the public know the character of their radio commentator can be at
best subsumed under the mantle of having been done with good motives and for
justifiable ends. The advertisement in question falls squarely within the bounds of
constitutionally protected expression under ART.3 Sec. 4 of the 1987 Constitution.
Being a radio commentator on issues of corruption by public officials,
irregularities in government, deems the complainant TORRALBA, as a public
figure. By entering 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 the character to have the right to criticize others of
their conduct.

MALICE:
When the offender, in performing an act or in incurring an omission, has the
intention to do an injury to the person, property or right of another, such
offender acts with malice. If the act or omission is punished by the RPC, the
offender is liable for intentional felony. (Reyes p.37)

ART. 3 SEC. 4 1987 CONSTITUTION STATES:

No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of
the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances.