People v. Lim
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Segundo S. Lim was found guilty of libel by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 7, along with co-accused Boy "BG" Guingguing. The libelous publication involved a one-page advertisement paid for by Lim, published in the Sunday Post edited by Guingguing, which contained records of criminal cases filed against private respondent Cirse "Choy" Torralba, including photographs of his arrest. Procedural History: The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. Petitioner's initial petition for review to the Supreme Court (SC) was denied due to non-compliance with procedural rules, and the resolution became final and executory. Meanwhile, Guingguing filed his own petition for review. The RTC granted a motion for promulgation of judgment against petitioner, which was denied reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the CA, which was also dismissed. The RTC subsequently set the promulgation of petitioner's conviction again. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the SC, seeking to stay the promulgation of his conviction pending the resolution of Guingguing's petition (G.R. No. 128959), arguing their liabilities were interwoven. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) recommended reversal, agreeing that promulgation should be stayed and petitioner should benefit from Guingguing's acquittal if the latter were acquitted, citing Rule 122, Section 11(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Issue(s)
Whether the promulgation and execution of petitioner's judgment of conviction should be stayed pending resolution of his co-accused's petition, and whether petitioner should benefit from the acquittal of his co-accused, Boy "BG" Guingguing, in a related libel case.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari and prohibition is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 29, 1996 and Resolution dated October 3, 1996 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 16413 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated May 17, 1994 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 7, in Criminal Case No. CBU-26582 is also REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Segundo S. Lim is hereby ACQUITTED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of staying promulgation and benefiting from co-accused's acquittal: The Court noted that the initial issue of staying promulgation became moot and academic with the subsequent acquittal of Guingguing in G.R. No. 128959. The core issue then became whether petitioner should benefit from Guingguing's acquittal. The Court applied Rule 122, Section 11(a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which states that an appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter. The Court clarified that a literal interpretation of "did not appeal" would defeat the purpose of the provision, which is to benefit an accused who did not join the appeal if the appellate judgment is favorable. The Court cited several cases (People v. Artellero, People v. Arondain, People v. De Lara, People v. Escaño) where favorable judgments in co-accused's appeals were extended to those who had withdrawn their appeals or whose convictions had become final, due to the inextricably linked nature of the evidence or the beneficial nature of the judgment. The Court found that the finding in Guingguing's acquittal that the publication by both petitioner and Lim could not be deemed to have been done with actual malice, and was done with good motives and for justifiable ends, was directly applicable and favorable to petitioner. Therefore, petitioner should benefit from Guingguing's acquittal, despite the procedural complexities of petitioner's own appeal status.
Main Doctrine
An acquittal of a co-accused in a libel case, based on the finding that the publication was made without actual malice and with good motives and for justifiable ends, benefits another accused whose conviction has not yet become final, pursuant to Rule 122, Section 11(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, as the evidence against them is inextricably linked and the favorable judgment is applicable.