GR 153699; (August, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 153699 . August 22, 2005.
CIRSE FRANCISCO “CHOY” TORRALBA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Cirse Torralba, a radio host, was charged with libel for allegedly defaming the late Judge Agapito Hontanosas and his family in his program “Tug-Ani ang Lungsod.” The information alleged that on April 11, 1994, Torralba publicly declared that the Hontanosases were “collaborators during the war” and “traitors,” intending to malign their reputation. The case was consolidated with three other libel cases filed by Atty. Manuel Hontanosas.
During trial, the prosecution presented tape recordings of the broadcasts as evidence. The witness, Segundo Lim, testified that he had the recordings made but admitted he did not operate the recorder himself; his daughter or housemaid did. He claimed he was present and heard the broadcasts as they were recorded. The defense objected to the tapes for lack of proper authentication by the actual recorder. The trial court provisionally admitted them, but the prosecution never presented the individuals who made the recordings to authenticate them.
ISSUE
Whether the tape recordings of the radio broadcasts were admissible as evidence to prove the alleged libelous statements.
RULING
The Supreme Court acquitted Torralba, ruling the tape recordings were inadmissible for lack of proper authentication. The Court emphasized that for mechanical recordings to be admitted, the party offering them must present as a witness the person who actually operated the recording device. This witness must testify that the recording is a faithful, accurate, and unaltered reproduction of the original event. Here, Segundo Lim was not the operator; he merely directed others to record. His testimony that he heard the broadcast while it was being recorded was insufficient to establish the required foundation of authenticity.
The prosecution’s failure to present the actual recorders—Shirly Lim or the housemaid—to authenticate the tapes was fatal to its case. Without the tapes, the prosecution’s evidence consisted only of Lim’s general testimony about the broadcasts’ content, which was inadequate to prove the specific defamatory statements beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the element of publication, essential in libel, was not convincingly established. The Court held that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof, warranting acquittal. The decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed and set aside.