Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 116 views

    Case Digest by Mark Lorenz E. Alamares

    Uploaded by

    Mark Lorenz Alamares
    This case digest summarizes Segundo S. Lim v. Court of Appeals, involving a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Lim after being found guilty of libel by the regional trial court along with his co-accused Guingguing. Guingguing later filed his own petition for review with the Supreme Court, which was still pending at the time Lim filed this case. The Supreme Court ruled that based on Rule 122, Section 11(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, Lim could benefit from a favorable ruling for Guingguing in his own case, even though Lim had appealed, if the evidence against them was interwoven. The Court later acquitted Guingguing,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest by Mark Lorenz E. Alamares

    Uploaded by

    Mark Lorenz Alamares
    116 views2 pages
    This case digest summarizes Segundo S. Lim v. Court of Appeals, involving a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Lim after being found guilty of libel by the regional trial court along with his co-accused Guingguing. Guingguing later filed his own petition for review with the Supreme Court, which was still pending at the time Lim filed this case. The Supreme Court ruled that based on Rule 122, Section 11(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, Lim could benefit from a favorable ruling for Guingguing in his own case, even though Lim had appealed, if the evidence against them was interwoven. The Court later acquitted Guingguing,

    Original Title

    RULE 122, SECTION 11 - LIM vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case digest summarizes Segundo S. Lim v. Court of Appeals, involving a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Lim after being found guilty of libel by the regional trial court along with his co-accused Guingguing. Guingguing later filed his own petition for review with the Supreme Court, which was still pending at the time Lim filed this case. The Supreme Court ruled that based on Rule 122, Section 11(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, Lim could benefit from a favorable ruling for Guingguing in his own case, even though Lim had appealed, if the evidence against them was interwoven. The Court later acquitted Guingguing,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    116 views2 pages

    Case Digest by Mark Lorenz E. Alamares

    Uploaded by

    Mark Lorenz Alamares
    This case digest summarizes Segundo S. Lim v. Court of Appeals, involving a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Lim after being found guilty of libel by the regional trial court along with his co-accused Guingguing. Guingguing later filed his own petition for review with the Supreme Court, which was still pending at the time Lim filed this case. The Supreme Court ruled that based on Rule 122, Section 11(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, Lim could benefit from a favorable ruling for Guingguing in his own case, even though Lim had appealed, if the evidence against them was interwoven. The Court later acquitted Guingguing,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Case digest by Mark Lorenz E.

    Alamares

    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.

    G.R. No. 147524 June 20, 2006

    AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

    FACTS: LIM, petitioner, together with GUINGGUING, were found guilty of libel by the
    RTC. This is due to the latter’s publication of records of criminal cases filed against CHOY,
    private respondent, including photographs of his arrest, through a one-page advertisement
    paid for by petitioner in the Sunday Post, a weekly publication edited and published by
    GUINGGUING.

    On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction. LIM then filed a petition for review with
    the Court but was denied. When a prayer for the promulgation of conviction was filed, LIM
    filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied yet again.

    Meanwhile, GUINGGUING filed with the Court a petition for review docketed as G.R. No.
    128959.

    The foregoing antecedents constrained LIM to file the present petition for certiorari and
    prohibition with urgent prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction or
    temporary restraining order; this was granted by the Court.

    LIM asserts that GUINGGUING’s petition before the Court (G.R. No. 128959) is still
    pending resolution and considering that their respective liabilities are interwoven, prudence
    dictates that a final decision by the Court in G.R. No. 128959 should be awaited; the OSG
    agrees with LIM’s argument.

    Later on, the Court acquitted GUINGGUING of the charge of libel.

    ISSUE: Can LIM benefit from GUINGGUING’s acquittal despite his appeal?

    RULING: The Court held that YES. Rule 122, Section 11(a) of the Revised Rules of
    Criminal Procedure, as amended, which states: SEC. 11. Effect of appeal by any of several
    accused. —(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who
    did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and
    applicable to the latter.

    A literal interpretation of the phrase “did not appeal,” as espoused by private respondent, will
    not give justice to the purpose of the provision. It should be read in its entirety and should not
    be myopically construed so as to defeat its reason, i.e., to benefit an accused who did not join
    in the appeal of his co-accused in case where the appellate judgment is favorable. In fact,
    several cases rendered by the Court applied the foregoing provision without regard as to the
    filing or non-filing of an appeal by a co-accused, so long as the judgment was favorable to
    him.
    Case digest by Mark Lorenz E. Alamares

    In People v. Artellero, the Court extended the acquittal of Rodriguez’s co-accused to him
    despite the withdrawal of his appeal, applying the Rule 122, Section 11(a), and considering
    that the evidence against both are inextricably linked, to wit: Although it is only appellant
    who persisted with the present appeal, the well-established rule is that an appeal in a criminal
    proceeding throws the whole case open for review of all its aspects, including those not raised
    by the parties. The records show that Rodriguez had withdrawn his appeal due to financial
    reasons. However, Section 11 (a) of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court provides that “[a]n appeal
    taken by one or more [of] several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except
    insofar as the judgment of the appellant court is favorable and applicable to the latter.” As we
    have elucidated, the evidence against and the conviction of both appellant and Rodriguez are
    inextricably linked. Hence, appellant’s acquittal, which is favorable and applicable to
    Rodriguez, should benefit the latter.

    You might also like