Name of photographer not indicated. Woman Communicating with Tower in the Background. Used here for educational, non-commercial purposes, free service by blog-use of image provided by and from www.allposters.com .
Having worked with some of the private prosecutors in this (the libel suit) case, in the plunder case People vs. Estrada, i probably have a conflict of interest; (and, by the way, parenthetically, a long time ago, about 2004, the Daily Tribune mentioned my name with an unfavorable adjective preceding it once or several times in connection with my work in the plunder case and never got my side; years later, i publicly came to the defense of the newspaper during those raids when the President declared a “state of emergency” and will always do so; for any media outfit, when State authorities encroach on our rights; parenthetically, i also vigorously stated publicly, several times, that Estrada had right to show his biopic, having seen the vcd version of it before the MTRCB censored it; and will always do the same for any filmmaker ). I’m disclosing my conflict of interest; the same cannot be said of many media entities who have masters to serve. Anyway, that’s out of the way; on the RTC decision, i don’t seem to have a copy of the decision of the court so i probably cannot give an opinion on it; it’s like reviewing a movie you never saw or reviewing a book you never read; you cannot just base it on the movie trailer or the book synopsis written at the back of the book.
[It would be a great service to mankind (or the human race) if on-line news reports of cases or disputes have a link to a page containing the complete decision or order, but then that would be in PDF file; it’s time-consuming to scan then upload; because courts do not hand out soft copies nor post their decisions (except the Supreme Court)].
The general rule in libel law is that “Every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious; truth is not a defense”. That is, the moment a person is maligned (or defamed), the “maligner” is presumed to have been motivated by ill will. This is the only criminal law provision; that is (of the 300 or so provisions in the Revised Penal Code) and hundreds of special criminal laws, the libel law is the only criminal law provision that presumes malice. In ALL criminal cases, there is a presumption of innocence; in libel however, the only overt act required to establish malice is simply the defamatory imputation; once that is shown, malice is presumed; it’s called MALICE-IN-LAW. BUT, but, BUT: if the accused in a libel case can show that the report is based on “good motives or justifiable ends”, that is:
1) The report or statement is a matter of public interest and concern (for example, it involves public officials or public figures and their public activities) AND
2) The report or statement is true; OR
3) If false, it is based on credible sources and the reporter verified, but (for example when the events unfolded) the report turned out to be false, it was an honest mistake and not a “reckless disregard etc.” .
If the accused in a libel case is able to show these three (well, not the three but number one and number two together; or number one and number three together), then he/ she is home; the burden shifts back to the prosecution. The prosecution now has to show that: The report or statement was absolutely false and not only was it absolutely false, there was “reckless disregard,”, i.e., there were no sources at all or the sources were all bogus. This is called MALICE-IN-FACT. (for example, intelligence reports; in Brillante vs. CA and Jejomar Binay where the accused relied on intel reports, the accused was convicted of libel).
Other examples of bogus sources are text messages from people you don’t know. (That’s why i’m surprised when, during live reports, the news anchor or reporters says “Text messages are going around that he is the financier, etc…” and they don’t know who are sending those text messages!; and those news anchors and reporters get away with it; they’re still broadcasting today.) I’m digressing. That’s because you didn’t upload a copy of the decision, hahaha.
Or maybe the report doesn’t have any sources at all. If it can be shown to be absolutely false and not just the result of an honest mistake but that, the report had no sources at all or was based on fabricated sources or bogus sources, the accused would be found liable.
But this is a tall order. I said here, absolutely false. Is there anything that is absolutely false? (oh… my philosophical side is coming out, i have to suppress it, hahaha) In New York Times vs. Sullivan, the Supreme Court in effect said that if there was some truth to the report or if the report is substantially true, the Court will rule in favour of protecting the ability to report freely (the Court said it better rhetorically).
And not only do i ask the question, is there anything that is absolutely false; in Hustler Magazine vs. Falwell, the Supreme Court said “and there is no such thing as a false opinion”.
The most “backgrounded” news report of this case was written by Carmela Fonbuena of www.abscbnNEWS.com/ Newsbreak , although there was no link to the decision.
According to the report, the Court here considered the complainants The Firm and Atty. Villaraza as private entities.
That brings us back to: FIRST BASE! Accused cannot get home. It makes it difficult, almost impossible for the accused to get home if the Court considers the “persons maligned” as private entities. (As stated in the second paragraph here, the general rule sets in: presumption of malice). The only way to get out of this is to show that there was no defamatory imputation, i.e., the report was not derogatory to The Firm or Atty. Villaraza; or to show that they are public figures. There are nine or so categories of public figures; the last category also specific but catch-all, but then, you ask, but for how long is one a public figure?
