THE Supreme Court (SC) has acquitted columnist and former ABS-CBN broadcaster Leo Lastimosa of the charge of libel filed against him by Cebu Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia over a column he wrote in The Freeman nearly 16 years ago.
In a decision promulgated on Dec. 5, 2022 but made public only on April 3, 2023, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa said Lastimosa “must perforce be acquitted,” noting there is reasonable doubt as to the element of identifiability, which is necessary for a libel suit to prosper.
Thus did the SC order the reversal of the Court of Appeals’ ruling that upheld the conviction of the Cebu-based journalist over the piece “Si Doling Kawatan” (translation: Doling the thief) published in his “Arangkada” column on June 29, 2007.
“The Decision dated July 27, 2016 and Resolution dated Aug. 2, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEBCR No. 02233 are hereby reversed and set aside. Accordingly, petitioner Leo A. Lastimosa is acquitted of the crime charged. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately,” the order reads.
Lastimosa welcomed the decision, telling SunStar Cebu on Saturday, April 8, 2023: “Grateful for verdict. Humbled by support. Thankful for family, friends and even strangers for prayers, financial assistance and encouragement.”
“Fight for what is right continues. I stand for what I believe in. It’s not been easy, but we move forward with grace and forgiveness,” said Lastimosa. “May this triumph of a poor broadcast journalist inspire the youth to not lose hope for a better future despite difficulties.”
The Cebu Citizens-Press Council (CCPC) commended the Supreme Court decision.
“CCPC has always advocated for public officials to respond in kind to media criticism: with the printed or broadcast word,” CCPC executive director Pachico Seares said in a statement Saturday.
“The aggrieved person has the right of reply. More than that, in the case of high officials such as the governor or mayor, there’s no compelling need to sue because each has the equivalent of a ‘bully pulpit’ and an extensive media apparatus to present one’s side or refute any accusation,” Seares said.
Complaint
In his 2007 column, Lastimosa had described Doling as a “fishmonger, thief, vindictive, ill-tempered, foul-mouthed and cruel.”
Lastimosa wrote that Doling suddenly amassed wealth and a fleet of vehicles, then won an election for barangay captain.
Garcia said she felt like she was the one referred to in the article “with malicious intent of exposing her (Garcia) to public contempt and ridicule.”
The complaint was filed at the Cebu City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 14.
During the trial, Lastimosa said the article was a work of fiction and that “Doling” did not refer to Garcia since the personal circumstances of “Doling” were different from Garcia’s, the governor never having been a fishmonger or a barangay captain.
However, the prosecution said Lastimosa had been a constant critic of Garcia and that he wrote the article to tarnish the governor’s reputation. It presented two witnesses whom it said could prove that a third person would immediately know that the article referred to Garcia.
The RTC convicted Lastimosa of libel on Aug. 30, 2013 and ordered him to pay P2 million as moral damages, P6,000 as fine, and to shoulder the cost of the proceedings.
Lastimosa went to the Court of Appeals (CA)-Cebu City Special 19th Division which, on July 27, 2016, affirmed the RTC ruling but reduced the moral damages to P500,000 from P2 million.
Explaining the modification, the CA said “moral damages are not awarded to enrich the complainant but instead to alleviate the moral suffering that resulted from the defendant’s culpable action.”
In a resolution dated Aug. 2, 2017, the CA denied Lastimosa’s motion for reconsideration on its decision, prompting the journalist to appeal his case before the SC.
Not identifiable
In its 18-page decision, the SC’s Third Division said “there is no third person who was presented that established beyond reasonable doubt that ‘Doling’ and Garcia are the same person.”
Studying the records of prosecution witness Glenn Baricuatro’s testimony, the SC found that his basis for saying “Doling” referred to Garcia was “primarily anchored on the auditory similarities between ‘Doling’ and Garcia’s name, Gwendolyn,” but that he had never heard any members of her family or official staff call her “Doling.”
As for the other prosecution witness, Seares, who said nine of his 15 students in a media studies class recognized “Doling” to be Garcia, the High Court said that in his testimony, Seares also said “even my students did not think” the column referred to Garcia but “they just said it was the governor because some commentator said it was the governor.”
The SC’s order continued: “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,” the SC added.
The CCPC said: “The long wait for the high court’s decision produced something new, at least in jurisprudence on libel cases involving Cebu journalists.”
“The SC, unlike the RTC and the CA, didn’t just accept the ‘say-so’ of the witness who identified the victim” but said it was material “‘to establish how such third person was able’ to identify ‘Doling’ as Gwen,” the CCPC said. (SunStar Philippines)