MikeLigalig.com

By June S. Blanco
Office of the Governor

A Bol-anon newspaper reporter and his managing editor drew prison terms and were ordered to pay P1 million in moral damages plus P50,000 attorney’s fee for publishing two libelous articles against Bohol Governor Erico Aumentado on Oct. 10, 2002.

Ordered by Presiding Judge Pablo Magdoza of Branch 48 of the Regional Trial Court of Bohol to each suffer imprisonment of from six months and one day to four years and two months on top of the prison terms were chief of reporters Ven C. Arigo and managing editor Reynaldo “Reigh” Monreal of the Atong Balita Sano (ABS), a weekly newspaper edited, published and circulated in Tagbilaran City and Bohol.

The case stemmed from Arigo’s banner story “Opisyal sa Kapitolyo, target sa NPA (Capitol official target of NPA)?” subtitled “Erico target sa NPA?” and another story, “Naglasalasa gyud diay ang P53 M equipment deal (The P53 M equipment deal is really greasy)?” that were published in the same issue.

The prosecution presented two witnesses: Aumentado who completes 40 years of elective public service this year, and lawyer Rolando Butalid, former Tagbilaran City mayor and former governor of Bohol . Private prosecutor Paulino Clarin Jr. assisted the governor.

Aumentado’s political career started in 1967. He has survived nine elections with no loss at all: as senior Provincial Board member, vice governor, completed three terms as congressman of Bohol’s 2nd District and is now in his third term as governor. He was the first Boholano to become Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives and Chair of the Visayas Bloc of Congressmen.

In his eight-page decision, Magdoza found Arigo and Monreal guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of libel under Article 353 in relation to Article 354, 355 and 360 all of the Revised Penal Code.

To note, the New People’s Army (NPA) had campaigned against Aumentado in previous elections by, among others, distributing leaflets that enumerated five reasons why the people should not vote for him. Samples of the leaflets are found at the mini museum then Col. Juanito Gomez, previous commander of the 302nd Infantry Brigade established at the brigade headquarters in Camp Rajah Sikatuna in Carmen town.

Among others, the governor earned the NPA’s ire because he did not pay access fee or permit to campaign fee in areas allegedly controlled by the rebels.

Besides, the NPAs ambushed Aumentado on Feb. 13, 2004 – a Friday the 13th – as he left the Capitol after meeting the Provincial Peace and Order Council (PPOC) that he chairs. Bullets wheezed by the feet of his close in security officer and hit in several places the dark green Mitsubishi Pajero that was his service vehicle at the time.

The late Silvino “Ka Bino” Clamucha, then spokesperson of the Central Visayas Regional Party Committee (CVRPC) had claimed responsibility of the ambush.

Arigo however wrote in Visayan that “But there is doubt as to the truth in the reported inclusion of the governor in the hit list of the leftist rebellion since Aumentado himself has been constantly publicizing his programs for the ‘forgotten’ sector of the society.”

“A few days before the unverified news about the list of the NPA, the administration of Aumentado was criticized because of, allegedly, conspiring with one of the quarry ‘concessionares’ Domingo Chua, not from Bohol,” Magdoza quoted the prosecution’s evidence.

Arigo also wrote that “Rumors also emerged that during the recent election, Aumentado used the ‘NPA’ to accordingly threaten the voters.”

But Aumentado said the published article reeked of malice. A lawyer by profession, he said he does not resort to terrorism, as this is a crime punishable by the Omnibus Election Code.

He said he did not have any understanding or conspiracy with Chua. While as governor he had exclusive authority to issue permits to quarry sand and gravel and other resources, he does not remember issuing one to Chua. The latter was already well established in the quarry business before he became governor so that Chua had no need to have any understanding with the complainant, Aumentado had stated in his affidavit.

In the same issue of the ABS, Arigo again maliciously attacked the complainant; he imputed graft and corruption on Aumentado.

“When the governor mentioned about ‘kickback’ in his letter, it revived the allegations of the contractors that there are some politicians who are receiving a 10% commission.”

“If we are to make the accusation of the contractors our basis, the 10% of the P53 million earmarked for the ‘road mechanism project’ will reach more than P5 million – even if the ‘winning bidder’ will give a ‘road roller’ or ‘grader’ so that the transaction will push through, there would still remain millions [of pesos] in grease money,” he wrote.

Aumentado said the article was opinionated and was a malicious imputation against him. He said Arigo twisted his letter to Vice Governor Julius Caesar Herrera dated Oct. 7, 2002.

Part of the letter reads: “xxx the acquisition of the equipment shall be through open and competitive public bidding to ensure transparency. For this purpose, I am requesting your personal active participation as PBAC [Pre-Qualifiction, Bids and Awards Committee] member in all phases of the process from pre-qualification to bidding and award.”

“xxx Furthermore, to avoid suspicion of ‘kickback’, we may ask the winning bidder to donate instead an earth-moving equipment such as pneumatic road roller or grader, among others, to the provincial government.”

Arigo’s article however read: “After it was disclosed that Gov. Erico Aumentado wantet to buy a HAMM RACO soil stabilizer costing more than P53 million.

The governor said Arigo’s presentation made it appear that the desire to buy road equipment costing P53 million was his alone when in fact it was the strong recommendation of the Technical Working Group (TWG) headed by Provincial Board member Eufrasio Mascariñas. He said the HAMM RACO costs definitely less than P53 million.

Aumentado also said Arigo insinuated that he was going to make money out of the deal, thereby imputing on the complainant the commission of the crime of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
For his part, Butalid testified that after reading the articles, he found them derogatory to Aumentado.

In his affidavit, Monreal said he allowed the publication of the first article “because he respected Arigo’s ability to write,” and the second article “because it was written by Arigo.”

Arigo failed to appear in court on the occasions he was supposed to testify, thereby waiving his right to adduce evidence in his favor.

Magdoza found all the elements of libel present in the instant case – defamatory imputation which tends to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of another; publication of the imputation; existence of malice and the person defamed must be identifiable although it is not necessary that he is named.

A third co-accused in the case was former Gov. Rene Relampagos. For lack of probable cause, however, the case against him was dismissed.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=4592.0

Further, I have made a research about libel and I have found this:

Such law must be changed so reporters can not be charged for reporting erroneous report. Such as the Judge can not be charged for handing a wrong verdict.

Source: Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
http://www.chanrobles.com/revisedpenalcodeofthephilippinesbook2.htm

Title Thirteen
 
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
 
Chapter One
LIBEL
 
Section One. — Definitions, forms, and punishment of this crime.
 
Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. — Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases:
1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.

Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. — A libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party.

Art. 356. Threatening to publish and offer to present such publication for a compensation. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who threatens another to publish a libel concerning him or the parents, spouse, child, or other members of the family of the latter or upon anyone who shall offer to prevent the publication of such libel for a compensation or money consideration.

Art. 357. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the course of official proceedings. — The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine of from 20 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any reporter, editor or manager or a newspaper, daily or magazine, who shall publish facts connected with the private life of another and offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said person, even though said publication be made in connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any judicial or administrative proceedings wherein such facts have been mentioned.

Art. 358. Slander. — Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature; otherwise the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.

Art. 359. Slander by deed. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall perform any act not included and punished in this title, which shall cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person. If said act is not of a serious nature, the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.
 
Section Two. — General provisions
 
Art. 360. Persons responsible. — Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same.
The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication, shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof.

The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written defamations as provided for in this chapter, shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the court of first instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, however, That where one of the offended parties is a public officer whose office is in the City of Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, or of the city or province where the libelous article is printed and first published, and in case such public officer does not hold office in the City of Manila, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous article is printed and first published and in case one of the offended parties is a private individual, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous matter is printed and first published: Provided, further, That the civil action shall be filed in the same court where the criminal action is filed and vice versa: Provided, furthermore, That the court where the criminal action or civil action for damages is first filed, shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts: And, provided, finally, That this amendment shall not apply to cases of written defamations, the civil and/or criminal actions which have been filed in court at the time of the effectivity of this law.

Preliminary investigation of criminal action for written defamations as provided for in the chapter shall be conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the province or city, or by the municipal court of the city or capital of the province where such action may be instituted in accordance with the provisions of this article.

No criminal action for defamation which consists in the imputation of a crime which cannot be prosecuted de oficio shall be brought except at the instance of and upon complaint expressly filed by the offended party. (As amended by R.A. 1289, approved June 15, 1955, R.A. 4363, approved June 19, 1965).
 
Art. 361. Proof of the truth. — In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be acquitted.
Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be admitted, unless the imputation shall have been made against Government employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties.

In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted.

Art. 362. Libelous remarks. — Libelous remarks or comments connected with the matter privileged under the provisions of Article 354, if made with malice, shall not exempt the author thereof nor the editor or managing editor of a newspaper from criminal liability.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=4592.0