Tabuk City, Kalinga – After several court hearings and some years of wait, the Regional Trial Court Branch 25 dismissed the Cyber libel cases filed by Tabuk City Mayor Darwin Estranero against two editors of Guru Press.
The charges against Social Media Editor Brent Martinez and Newspaper Editor Ghumie Pinkihan originated from two articles published in July and August 2020 through Guru Press - Cordillera social media news page – “Tabuk City: Residents file charges against Mayor Estranero for overpriced medical supplies bought on March 25, 2020” and “Claim that no available thermal scanners in Tabuk City in March 2020 – not true” – Drugstore owners.
For the first news article, Estranero admitted to the court that indeed cases had been filed against him before the Ombudsman as contained in the post of Guru Press, but argues that the way the article was posted was malicious and libelous as it made it appear that he is guilty of the offenses charged.
As for the second article, Estranero argued it was likewise malicious and libelous as it lacked verification before it was posted. He said it made it appear that there was corruption and irregularity when the purchase of the thermal scanners in Cauayan, Isabela was made despite their availability in the locality at a cheaper price.
Tabuk City purchased a thermal gun in Cauayan, Isabela with a market value of P300-500 at P12,000 each in March 2020.
The defense of the accused
Martinez and Pinkihan contended that the prosecution failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the grounds of privileged communication and prescription of offense.
The two argued that news articles are considered privileged communication since news articles are fair and true reports, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks.
For the first article, they said they merely cited the allegations in the affidavit complaint filed by certain residents of Tabuk City against Mayor Estranero and Purisima and did not ascribe the commission of a crime. In like manner, for the second article, it simply contained fair and true report of the contents of the affidavit executed by some members of drugstore owners in the city.
The two editors also cited various jurisprudence on freedom of the press as matters of public interest and that fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged communication and is a valid defense for libel or slander.
Additionally, they argued that the offense they were charged of was filed past the one-year prescriptive period. The first news article was published on July 2, 2020 and the second was on August 2, 2020, but the information of the complaint was filed in court on August 26, 2021.
Art. 353. Definition of Libel – A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
There are four elements constituting the crime of libel, a) defamatory imputation tending to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt, b) malice either in law or in fact, c) publication, and d) identifiability of the person defamed.
There is no doubt that the elements of publication and identifiability are present.
Nevertheless, the court found that the two articles indeed would show that there were no comments or remarks by Guru Press Cordillera but that they merely reported the acts made by some residents of Tabuk City and the Drugstore Owners Association.
On the claim of Estranero that using the words “charged” and “overpriced” in the title of the first article complained gave the impression that he is already guilty and corrupt, and that the items bought were indeed overpriced, the court thought otherwise. To consider the articles defamatory, the court said, the context must be taken in their entirety. In reporting, Guru Press Cordillera referred to the documents (affidavits) as their basis and did not make use of their own opinion.
In one of the hearings, Estranero imputes ill motive against Brent Martinez stating that Brent was previously connected with the City Government but went out when his actions and recommendations were rejected by the City Interagency Taskforce and he did not back him up. The articles, Estranero said, were Brent’s way of getting even with the committee.
The court, however, said the bare allegation was not proven by concrete and convincing evidence. While the testimony was corroborated by Atty. Arthur Kub-ao as one of the witnesses, the court said it could not give credence to the same as Atty. Kub-ao is the City Legal Officer who is expected to side with the complainant who is the City Mayor. The court then said “Malice cannot be presumed.”
Moreover, the court said that the matters published are of public interest as public funds are involved, and added that it found the first article was just mere reiterations of the charges filed by some constituents and that the second article as only a report of the reaction of the Drugstore Owners Association of Tabuk to a previous action of the government through an affidavit which were the bases of the articles. With that, the court agreed that the articles are considered privileged communication.
As to the ground of prescription, the court said the complainant instituted the filing of the cases within the prescriptive period of 1 year since Estranero filed the complaint before the National Bureau of Investigation on July 15, 2020 and the case was endorsed to the City Prosecutor of Tabuk City, Kalinga on February 9, 2021 although the information was filed in court later on August 26, 2021. The articles were published on July 2, 2020 and August 2, 2020.
Nonetheless, the court said that with the findings and observations, it had no recourse but to grant the motion to dismiss the case.
.png)
Comentarii