Facts:
Lastimosa was charged with Libel for writing an article about the Governor of Cebu Gwendolyn Garcia published at The Freeman. He wrote an article about a person named “doling” who suddenly and mysteriously accumulated huge sums of money and became rich. The story was titled “Si Doling Kawatan (Doling the thief)”. In the story, because of her sudden wealth, Doling was able to easily win any elected positions and that when a neighbor insinuated that her wealth was ill-gotten, Doling viciously erupted like a lightning strike at high noon shouting “"Yes, I am indeed a thief! Can anybody do anything about it?".
The prosecution asserts that the article "Si Doling Kawatan" was about Garcia, and that Lastimosa wrote the same to tarnish her reputation as governor, "and as a Cebuana woman, mother and grandmother. Lastimosa maintained that the article was merely a work of fiction in the third person narrative form. He insisted that "Doling" did not refer to Garcia since the personal circumstances of "Doling" were different from Garcia's.
RTC ruled in favor of Garcia. Lastimosa appealed. CA affirmed the RTC’s decision. Lastimosa sought reconsideration of the CA Decision. However, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in affirming RTC’s decision of convicting Lastimosa for libel.
Ruling:
YES. Lastimosa did not commit libel. In this case, the subject article was talking about the private life of the character "Doling." The article talked about the dealings of "Doling" with her neighbors, particularly how she was abrasive with them when she amassed wealth and gained political power. While it is true that criticisms against public officials or public figures are considered privileged — and thus malice is not presumed — according to jurisprudence,28 the said exception does not apply where the comment or criticism was about, or extends to the private life of the public figure. The article was not making any comment against the public life of "Doling" or her actions as a public official, i.e., as a barangay captain. Therefore, malice could be presumed from the defamatory nature of the article.
Also, the last element — the element of identifiability of the victim — was, however, not established beyond reasonable doubt. The rule is that "[i]n order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable although it is not necessary that he be named. Even when a publication may be clearly defamatory as to somebody, if the words have no personal application to the plaintiff, they are not actionable by him. If no one is identified, there can be no libel because no one's reputation has been injured xxx.
In fine, in order for one to maintain an action for an alleged defamatory statement, it must appear that the plaintiff is the person with reference to whom the statement was made.
In the present case, there is no question that Garcia was not explicitly referred to in the article "Si Doling Kawatan." Thus, in convicting Lastimosa of the crime, the CA relied heavily on identification through description and by extrinsic evidence — through Baricuatro's testimony — to establish the link between "Doling" and Garcia.
The similarities in how "Doling" and "Gwendolyn" sound when pronounced cannot, standing alone, be made the basis for establishing the link between the character "Doling" and Garcia. Even the testimony of the other prosecution witness, Atty. Seares, is insufficient to establish said link. The core of his testimony — that nine of his 15 students in a media studies class recognized "Doling" to be Garcia — does not establish anything in evidence. TEven the testimony of the other prosecution witness, Atty. Seares, is insufficient to establish said link. The core of his testimony — that nine of his 15 students in a media studies class recognized "Doling" to be Garcia — does not establish anything in evidence.
While the requirement of identifiability is already complied with even if just one other person identifies the plaintiff as the subject of the defamatory words, it is material — for purposes of the plaintiffs recovery and/or the author's conviction — to establish how such third person was able to make the connection between the writing and the plaintiff. Such third person's recognition must be anchored in some description intrinsic to the writing and/or through some other extrinsic evidence. In this case, there is no anchor apart from the auditory similarities between "Doling" and Garcia's first name, Gwendolyn.
There is no third person who was presented that established beyond reasonable doubt that "Doling" and Garcia are the same person. Neither do Lastimosa's previous articles sufficiently establish the said fact, for they are not the articles subject of this libel case, and it does not necessarily follow that because he had previously written about Garcia that the latter would automatically be the subject of the article in question. In other words, that "Doling" refers to Garcia is not a logical conclusion of the fact that Lastimosa had previously written about Garcia.
All told, there is reasonable doubt as to the element of identifiability which is necessary for a libel suit to prosper. Therefore, Lastimosa must perforce be acquitted.