G.R. No. 147524; June 20, 2006
SEGUNDO S. LIM, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SIMEON P. DUMDUM, JR., Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Cebu City, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and CIRSE “CHOY” TORRALBA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Segundo S. Lim and his co-accused, Boy “BG” Guingguing, were convicted of libel by the Regional Trial Court for publishing a paid advertisement containing criminal records and arrest photographs of private respondent Cirse Torralba. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with a modified penalty. Lim’s petition for review before the Supreme Court was denied due to procedural defects, and the judgment against him became final and executory in 1997. Meanwhile, Guingguing separately appealed his conviction (G.R. No. 128959).
The trial court subsequently ordered the promulgation of the final judgment against Lim. Lim opposed, arguing that the pending resolution of his co-accused’s appeal warranted a stay, as their liabilities were intertwined. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals denied his pleas, prompting Lim to file this petition for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE

Whether the final and executory judgment of conviction against petitioner Lim should be set aside and he be acquitted following the Supreme Court’s subsequent acquittal of his co-accused Guingguing in a separate appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and acquitted Segundo S. Lim. The Court held that although Lim’s conviction had attained finality, prevailing jurisprudence allows a favorable judgment secured by a co-accused to be extended to others convicted of the same offense, even if their own judgments are final. The legal logic rests on the principle of justice and consistency, preventing an absurd situation where individuals, prosecuted for the same act arising from a single publication, would have contradictory verdicts.
In G.R. No. 128959, the Court acquitted Guingguing, ruling that the published material involved a public figure and was not proven to have been made with actual malice—a necessary element for libel. Since Lim’s liability was based on the identical publication, the factual and legal basis for his conviction was extinguished by the co-accused’s acquittal. The Court emphasized that its finding of no actual malice applied to both Lim and Guingguing. To deny Lim the benefit of this favorable ruling would be a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the final judgments of the lower courts were reversed and set aside.