The Post publisher, the best dressed media man hereabouts considering the long line of libel suits “in his editorial closet” was credited another libel case, this time, from the former national federation president of the Sangguniang Kabataan. Dead or alive, no media man in Bohol has accumulated so much libel cases than the Post publisher since earning his spurs in the “media racket” at the young age of 21. No less libel -scarred by local standards, the Post publisher thought all along that he has become too slippery as an ell to be slapped with libel, knowing his landmark victory before the Supreme court earning him a niche in the pedestal of prominent personalities whose jurisprudence now forming part as law of the land, but it turned out that he was no Teflon media personality. The Teflon myth was shattered by no less than Third Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Tito Apura who found the Post publisher probably guilty of the crime of libel arising from a complaint filed by the former SK official Jane Censoria Cajes now Mrs. John Geesnell Lim Yap.

No hurt feeling was the reaction of the respondent when asked about his latest brush with the law involving libel adding that it was only unfortunate for the prosecuting fiscal not to appreciate the dictum “what is sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose”. The accused was referring to the same case of libel although of different circumstance where the same inquest fiscal quoted lengthily the landmark decision of the High Court in the case of the brother of the Post Publisher. His younger brother Sen Guingguing was sued for libel just before the May 2010 elections by Carmen mayoralty candidate Conchita Toribio de los Reyes. In the same resolution, the same fiscal quoted the part of Guingguing vs CA G.R. No. 128959 which read thus: To avoid the self censorship that would necessarily accompany strict liability for erroneous statements, rules governing liability for injury to refutation are required to allow an adequate margin of error by protecting some inaccuracies. It is for the same reason that the New York Times doctrine requires that liability for defamation of a public official or public figure may not be imposed in the absence of actual malice on the part of the person making the libelous statement. Citing the same the Guingguing doctrine in the libel case where he was acquitted in the high tribunal. Apura cleared the younger brother of the crime charged.

In absolving the younger Guingguing of libel, Prosecutor Apura revisited the elder Guingguing's case in the high court, quoting a portion saying: “it cannot be helped if the commentary protected by the Bill of Rights is accompanied by excessive color of innuendo. Certainly, persons in possession of fruitful facts are not obliged to present the same in bland fashion. These true facts may be utilized to convince the listener/reader against a particular position, or to even dissuade one against a particular position, or to dissuade one against accepting the credibility of a public figure. Dry facts, by themselves, are hardly stirring. It is the commentary thereupon that usually animates the discourse which is encouraged by the Constitution as integral to the democratic away of life. This is replete in many components of our daily life, such as political addresses, televised debates, and even commercial advertisements”. In the instant case involving the elder Guingguing, the preliminary investigator did cite a portion of the Guingguing case that read as follows: For that matter, even if the defamatory statement is false, no liability can attach if it relates to official conduct, unless the public official concerned proves that the statement was made with actual malice –that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. This is the gist of the ruling in the landmark case of New York Times v Sullivan which this Court has acted with approval in several of its own decisions.

But the prosecutor saw a different light in appreciating the Guingguing doctrine. Instead he zeroed on the issues that a preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. He said the basic issues therefore in a preliminary investigation before his office as in the instant complaint are: 1) whether the act complained of has been committed and 2) whether there is probable cause to believe that the respondents are guilty of the acts complained of. IN the wake of his finding despite the respondent's citation of settled cases on libel, the prosecutor still found probable cause to indict the Post publisher.

Slapped with libel with Guingguing was the principal accused Ferdinand Manuel de Erio who accused the former Miss Cajes in the Sunday publication as having been wrapped with many anomalies. The accused de Erio was demanding from Cajes a detailed financial statement during her term as SK federation president. The alleged anomalous transaction saw print in the lifestyle section of the Bohol Sunday Post of which de Erio was the editor. The offending publication was not cleared for print by de Erio thinking that anything that concerned articles in the lifestyle section were harmless and non-controversial. This was the lapse being exploited by the complainant for failure of the editor to go over the story before it saw print. According to the same Post-publisher, had the story been shown first to the editor, no way would it saw print since upon perusal of the story after publication, it was found out to be “too controversial for comfort”. As a result of the lapse in judgment, de Erio was suspended as lifestyle editor—until now.