CIRIACO ‘BOY’ GUINGGUING, Petitioners,

vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.

CASE NO:17984-R
others mentioned are R-43035 (Undetailed) and 14843-R (Undetailed)
CRIME AS FOLLOWS: ESTAFA
others mentioned are malicious mischief and serious physical injuries, case numbers are
followed respectively(undetailed)
FACTS: As stated and presented below
I. The case is under the jurisdiction of Defamation, which states that defamation
includes libel and slander, means the offence of injuring a person’s character, fame or
reputation through false and malicious statement. (Revised Penal code 18th Ed 2012.
arts 114-367)
II. complainant sought Lim and petitioner’s conviction for libel.
a. Libel: is a defamation committed by means of writing, printing, lithography,
engraving, radio, phonograph, painting or theatrical or cinematography exhibition
or any similar means.
b. Different clips presenting libelous intent for the acquitted Mr. CIRSE ‘CHOY’
TORRALBA is/was issued and paid by Mr. SEGUNDO LIM
ISSUE/ISSUES: As stated and presented below
I. Mr. CIRSE ‘CHOY’ TORRALBA asked for moral, compensatory and exemplary
damages as well as attorney’s fees because the publication allegedly placed him in
public contempt and ridicule.
➢ This statement suggest that Mr. Torralba wanted compensation for the damages
brought about by the publication issued by Mr. Lim
II. Segundo Lim, in his defense, claimed that complainant was allegedly making
scurrilous attacks against him and his family over the airwaves.
➢ Defended himself with an allegation to Mr. Torralba without presented evidences
or stated thereof in the records.
III. Segundo Lim had no access to radio time, he opted for paid advertisements via
newspaper to answer the attacks, as a measure of self-defense.
➢ Admitted that he opted to retaliate via paid advertisement as “self-defense”
IV. Lim also argued that complainant, as a media man and member of the fourth estate,
occupied a position almost similar to a public functionary and should not be onion-
skinned and be able to absorb the thrust of public scrutiny.
 RULING: Held and was concluded by the court.
I. Held that: the trial court likewise disregarded the insulative effects of complainant’s
status as a mediaman (Media Practitioner) to the prosecution of the criminal libel
charge. The publication of a calumny even against public officers or candidates for
public office, according to the trial court, is an offense most dangerous to the people.
It deserves punishment because the latter may be deceived thereby and reject the best
and deserving citizens to their great injury. 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 for the damage done.

a. The Complainant’s status as a Media practitioner was disregarded on the libel

charge meaning his occupation did not give weight in the overall judgement
b. The Calumny with the publication against public officers or candidates is branded
as an offense most dangerous to people (misleading information)
c. 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 for the damage done. (Compensation must be given as stated in the
1st issue stated or as mentioned above)

Issued and written by:

Justin Ronan S. Punzalan
Student Of AB COMM III-A

Statement of Credibility
All laws mentioned and stated here are revered and proper citation has been implemented
and stated, for any concerns of false citations attached and if full regards are not met then this
paper/document is/will be considered null and unusable.