For a libel suit to prosper, the element of identifiability of the victim must be established beyond reasonable doubt; it is insufficient that the complainant recognizes themselves as the person defamed if third persons reading the article could not reasonably ascertain that the article referred to the complainant, especially when the identification relies merely on auditory similarities of names or uncorroborated hearsay.

The case arose from an allegedly libelous article written by petitioner Leo A. Lastimosa, a known media practitioner and critic of then Cebu Governor Gwendolyn F. Garcia. The article, titled "Si Doling Kawatan," described a character named "Doling" who suddenly amassed wealth and exhibited negative traits. Garcia filed a libel case, claiming she was the person referred to as "Doling."

• On June 29, 2007, an article titled "Si Doling Kawatan" (Doling the thief) written by petitioner Leo A. Lastimosa was published in his column "Arangkada" in The Freeman newspaper.
• The article described "Doling" as a fish-monger whose life suddenly changed, amassing wealth, vehicles, and properties, and eventually becoming a Barangay captain.
• "Doling" was further characterized as a loudmouth, abrasive, cruel, arrogant, and who admitted to being a thief.
• Private complainant, Gwendolyn F. Garcia, was the incumbent Governor of Cebu at the time of publication.
• Stipulated facts included: Lastimosa is a tri-media practitioner; Garcia was Governor of Cebu; Lastimosa wrote the article; Garcia had never been a fish-monger or a Barangay Captain.
• The prosecution presented witnesses Glenn Baricuatro and Atty. Pacheco Seares to prove that "Doling" referred to Garcia.
• Baricuatro testified that he believed "Doling" referred to Garcia based on the auditory similarity between "Doling" and "Gwendolyn."
• Atty. Seares testified that nine of his 15 media class students thought the article pointed to Garcia.
• Lastimosa argued the article was a work of fiction and "Doling" did not refer to Garcia due to differing personal circumstances.

• The article "Si Doling Kawatan" was merely a work of fiction in the third-person narrative form.
• The character "Doling" did not refer to private complainant Gwendolyn Garcia, as their personal circumstances (e.g., being a fish-monger, a Barangay captain) were different.
• There was no clear identification of Garcia as "Doling" in the article.
• The prosecution failed to establish the element of identifiability beyond reasonable doubt.
• The testimony of Glenn Baricuatro, linking "Doling" to Garcia based on auditory similarity of names, was insufficient and merely his personal belief.
• The testimony of Atty. Pacheco Seares regarding his students' perception was hearsay and did not prove identifiability.

• The article "Si Doling Kawatan" was about Gwendolyn Garcia, and Lastimosa wrote it to tarnish her reputation.
• Third persons, like witness Glenn Baricuatro, immediately understood that "Doling" referred to Garcia.
• Nine out of 15 students in Atty. Pacheco Seares' media class also identified Garcia as the "Doling" in the article.
• Lastimosa's previous articles about Garcia indicated a view of her as a "thief, corrupt, arrogant, vindictive, ill-tempered, foul-mouthed, and cruel," aligning with the description of "Doling."
• All elements of libel, including identifiability, were sufficiently established by the prosecution.

• Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of Lastimosa for the crime of Libel, specifically, whether the element of identifiability of the victim (Gwendolyn F. Garcia) was established beyond reasonable doubt.

• The Supreme Court granted the petition and acquitted Leo A. Lastimosa, reversing and setting aside the CA's decision.
• The Court found that while the article was defamatory, malicious (presumed as it concerned private life), and publicized, the element of identifiability of the victim was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
• The testimony of Glenn Baricuatro, primarily anchoring his identification on the auditory similarity between "Doling" and "Gwendolyn," was deemed insufficient as he admitted no knowledge of other descriptive circumstances linking "Doling" to Garcia.
• The testimony of Atty. Pacheco Seares regarding his students' identification of Garcia was considered hearsay as the students themselves were not presented as witnesses and could not be cross-examined.
• Atty. Seares himself testified that Lastimosa told him the article was not about the governor and that many attributes of "Doling" did not fit Garcia.
• The Court reiterated that for identifiability, it must appear that at least one third person would have understood the description as relating to the plaintiff, based on intrinsic reference, description, or extrinsic evidence linking the character to the person defamed.
• Mere auditory similarity of names, without further corroborating descriptions or circumstances known to third persons, is insufficient to establish identifiability in a libel case.
• Lastimosa's previous articles about Garcia did not automatically mean the current article also referred to her; such a link is not a logical conclusion.

• Elements of Libel — For an imputation to be libelous, it must be: (a) defamatory; (b) malicious; (c) given publicity; and (d) the victim must be identifiable. The Court found elements (a), (b) (presumed malice as it concerned private life), and (c) present, but (d) lacking.
• Presumption of Innocence in Criminal Cases — The Court commences its review from the fundamental principle that the accused is presumed innocent, requiring all elements of the crime to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This was emphasized in the context of libel, balancing freedom of expression with state power to punish harmful speech.
• Identifiability of the Victim in Libel — It is essential that the victim be identifiable, though not necessarily named. Identification can be through intrinsic reference, description, or extrinsic evidence showing that a third person recognized the party vilified. In this case, the Court found the evidence for identifiability (auditory similarity of names, hearsay testimony) insufficient to overcome reasonable doubt.
• Malice in Libel (Presumed vs. In Fact) — Malice is presumed in defamatory imputations (malice in law). Criticisms against public officials related to official duties are privileged, and malice in fact must be proven. However, attacks on the private character of a public officer on matters unrelated to official functions are not privileged, and malice can be presumed if the imputation is defamatory. The article concerned "Doling's" private life, so malice was presumed.
• Hearsay Rule — Testimony about what others (e.g., Atty. Seares' students) perceived or said, when those others are not presented in court for cross-examination, is hearsay and generally inadmissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted. This was applied to Atty. Seares' testimony regarding his students' identification of Garcia.

• "For an imputation to be libelous, the following requisites must concur: a) it must be defamatory; b) it must be malicious; c) it must be given publicity and d) the victim must be identifiable. Absent any one of these elements precludes the commission of the crime of libel."
• "In fine, in order for one to maintain an action for an alleged defamatory statement, it must appear that the plaintiff is the person with reference to whom the statement was made."
• "x x x unless it appears that the description of the person referred to in the defamatory publication was sufficiently clear that at least one third person would have understood the description as relating to him. It is not sufficient that the plaintiff in the action should have recognized himself as the person intended in the libel." (citing Kunkle v. Cablenews-American)
• "The libelous article, while referring to 'Miss S,' does not give a sufficient description or other indications which identify 'Miss S.' In short, the article fails to show that 'Miss S' and Florinda Bagay are one and the same person." (citing Diaz v. People)

• Kunkle vs. Cablenews-American and Lyons — Cited for the rule that for identifiability in libel, it must be shown that a third person recognized or could identify the party vilified in the article; it's not enough that the plaintiff recognized themselves. This was central to the Court's finding that identifiability was not proven.
• MVRS Publications v. Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines — Cited for then Associate Justice Puno's explanation on the importance of identifiability, emphasizing that the publication must be "of and concerning the plaintiff."
• Diaz v. People — Cited as a more recent application where the Court acquitted the accused for libel because the article referring to "Miss S" failed to sufficiently describe or indicate that "Miss S" was the complainant, Florinda Bagay, despite the complainant presenting a witness who recognized her as "Miss S." This case was analogous to Lastimosa's situation.
• Cuico v. People — Referenced for the principle that the Court, in reviewing criminal cases, starts with the presumption of innocence.
• Lopez v. People — Cited for the enumeration of the elements of libel.
• Novicio v. Aggabao — Cited for the rule on construing defamatory words in their plain, natural, and ordinary meaning.
• Borjal v. Court of Appeals — Referenced regarding privileged communication and malice concerning public officials, and the requirement of identifiability.
• Sazon v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the rule that attacks on the private character of a public officer, unrelated to official duties, may constitute libel.
• Corpus v. Cuaderno, Sr. — Cited for the three ways to establish identity when the person defamed is not explicitly named (intrinsic reference, description, or extrinsic evidence).
• Uy Tioco v. Yang Shu Wen — Referenced in the Diaz v. People citation, stating that if the requirement for an identified or identifiable victim is not met, the libel case must be dismissed.

• Revised Penal Code, Article 353 (Definition of Libel) — This article defines libel and was the basis for the charge against Lastimosa. The Court analyzed its elements in relation to the facts.
• Revised Penal Code, Article 354 (Requirement of Publicity, Malice) — This article discusses the presumption of malice in every defamatory imputation, unless it falls under privileged communication. The Court found malice presumed as the article touched on the private life of "Doling."