Lim Arellano-Lim Law

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.

08/05/2026

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 😇😇

10/04/2026

Defective Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping attached to the petition or complaint shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or initiatory pleading but shall cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice.

10/03/2026

Defamatory words must refer to an ascertained or ascertainable person, and that person must be the plaintiff. Statements are not libelous unless they refer to an ascertained or ascertainable person.