Lim Arellano-Lim Law

06/06/2026

Reasonable doubt is that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt. Absolute certainty of guilt is not required by the law to convict of any crime charged but moral certainty is required and this certainty is required to every proposition of proof requisite to constitute the offense. The reasonable doubt should necessarily pertain to the facts constituted by the crime charged. Surmises and conjectures have no place in a judicial inquiry and thus are shunned in criminal prosecution. For the accused to be acquitted on reasonable doubt, it must arise from the evidence adduced or from lack of evidence. Reasonable doubt is not such a doubt as any man may start questioning for the sake of a doubt; nor a doubt suggested or surmised without foundation in facts, for it is always possible to question any conclusion derived from the evidence on record.

04/06/2026

12/05/2026

The following elements constitute libel: (a) imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another; (b) publication of the imputation; (c) identity of the person defamed; and, (d) existence of malice.

Further, it is settled that in determining whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are to be construed in their entirety and should be taken in their plain, natural, and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by persons reading them, unless it appears that they were used and understood in another sense.

In this case, the element of existence of malice is missing. "Malice" connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed, and implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. It is present when it is shown that the author of the libelous remarks made such remarks with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity thereof. The statements posted on the respondent's Facebook story merely detailed what transpired during the hearing.Hence, this Office finds no prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction to indict the respondent of Cyber Libel.

12/05/2026

The absence of the account name that produced the alleged malicious messages from among the very allegations of the complainant has the effect of failing to prove the identity of the perpetrator. The significance of establishing the identity of the person responsible for the commission of the crime was emphasized by the Supreme Court in Mark Anthony Pagtakhan v. People citing People v. Ansano.

The Court declared:
"Proving the identity of the accused as the malefactor is the prosecution's primary responsibility. Thus, in every criminal prosecution, the identity of the offender, like the crime itself must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the crime but prove the identity of the criminal, for even if the commission of the crime can be established, there can be no conviction without proof of the identity of the criminal beyond reasonable doubt."

The complainant's failure to establish the identity of the perpetrator of the alleged malicious posts has the effect of failing to satisfy the required prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction under Section 5 Rule II of DOJ Department Circular No. 015 series of 2024.

06/05/2026

"The basis of the acquittal is reasonable doubt, which simply means that the evidence of the prosecution was not sufficient to sustain the guilt of accused-appellant beyond the point of moral certainty. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, however, is a burden particular to the prosecution and does not apply to exculpatory facts as may be raised by the defense; the accused is not required to establish matters in mitigation or defense beyond a reasonable doubt, nor is he required to establish the truth of such matters by a preponderance of the evidence, or even to a reasonable probability."

"It is the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its side with clarity and persuasion, so that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion. What is required of it is to justify the conviction of the accused with moral certainty. Upon the prosecution's failure to meet this test, acquittal becomes the constitutional duty of the Court, lest its mind be tortured with the thought that it has imprisoned an innocent man for the rest of his life. The constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty can be overthrown only by proof beyond reasonable doubt."

30/04/2026

22/04/2026

Thank you again LSPU College of Law 😇😇