Manila court refuses to dismiss cyberlibel raps vs Rappler
Credit to Author: hniitsu| Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 04:18:47 +0000
MANILA, Philippines — The Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 46 has denied the bid of Rappler CEO Maria Ressa to dismiss the cyberlibel case filed by businessman Wilfredo Keng, saying it is still within the 12 year prescriptive period.
In an order dated April 12, 2019, Manila RTC Judge Rainelda H. Estacio-Montesa denied Ressa and former Rappler research-writer Reynaldo Santos Jr.’s motion to quash the Information filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
The motion to quash which was filed by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) said Ressa and Santos cannot be prosecuted of an offense that does not exist when the alleged ‘libelous’ article was posted online.
The article in question was written by Santos in May 2012 claiming that businessman Keng lent his sports utility vehicle to then Chief Justice Renato Corona.
Apart from this, the story also cited an intelligence report that said Keng had been under surveillance by the National Security Council for alleged involvement in human trafficking and drug smuggling.
Keng filed the cyberlibel complaint stating that the 2012 article was re-posted on February 2014.
FLAG argued that Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act was still non-existent in February 2014 with the temporary restraining order issued by the high court.
READ: Lawyers’ group asks court to dismiss cyberlibel case vs Rappler chief
Also, the law did not define a new offense of cyberlibel but simply adds an additional means to commit libel apart from the enumeration under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, the motion to quash pointed out that it should have prescribed within one year “because it is, for every intent and purpose” a libel under the RPC through new and additional means.
But the Manila Court, in denying the motion said the Supreme Court simply issued a restraining order against the implementation of RA 10175 but not the law’s effectivity.
“So, while crimes committed during the said period cannot be prosecuted during the effectivity of the TRO, they may be prosecuted after the lifting of the same just like what is done in this case,” said the Court.
On the ground of prescription, the court said that to determine the prescriptive period for the Cybercrime Prevention Act, specifically for cyberlibel, another law must be taken into consideration–Republic Act 3326 or the Act to Establish Prescription for Violations of Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances.
The Manila Court, citing a Supreme Court ruling said that RA 3326 should be taken into consideration when special laws such as the Cybercrime Prevention Act do not provide for prescriptive period.
“As alleged in the Information, the accused republish the subject article on 19 February 2014. The instant case was filed in Court on 5 February 2019, which is well within the period of 12 years negating the assertion raised by the Accused that the offense already prescribed,” the Manila Court said. /je