Manila court rejects Ressa’s appeal to junk libel rap
Credit to Author: The Manila Times| Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 04:41:57 +0000
A Manila court rejected the appeal of news site Rappler Chief and Executive Editor Maria Ressa and former researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr. to junk their cyber libel case because of “lack of merit.”
Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 46 Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa ruled on April 12 that there were enough elements of libel claimed by Department of Justice (DoJ) on its charge sheet, that the prescription period for cyber libel was 12 years and not one year as provided under Republic Act 3326 and that Rappler has corporate liability.
Section 2 of Republic Act 3326 states that “prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceeding for its investigation and punishment.”
Rappler lawyer Theodore Te used as reference to challenge thr DoJ position a Supreme Court decision in 2014, which said that “cyber libel was “not a new crime but is one already punishable under Article 353 [of the Revised Penal Code]”.
Article 353 of the RPC provides that one cannot be sued for libel one year after a purportedly libelous story is published.
Judge Montesa rejected this argument saying, “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.”
Ressa and Santos, the DoJ said, allegedly violated The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 or Republic Act 10175.
The complaint stemmed from a resurrected complaint of businessman Wilfredo Keng in connection with a supposed libelous article by Rappler on May 29, 2012, titled “CJ using SUVs of ‘controversial’ businessmen,” postee four months before the law was enacted.
The court agreed with the DoJ’s claim that Rappler “republished” the story and thus Cybercrime Prevention Act may be applied retroactively.
It also rejected the motion to quash,
which said that the law was under temporary restraining order (TRO) from October 9, 2012 continuously until April 22, 2014, thus “there was effectively no Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.”
The alleged republication was done on February 19, 2014, when the TRO was still in effect, the appeal said.
“The TRO merely suspends the implementation and enforcement of RA 10175 so that crimes committed during the said period cannot be prosecuted. However, it did not suspend its effectivity,” the judge said. CATHERINE A. MODESTO
The post Manila court rejects Ressa’s appeal to junk libel rap appeared first on The Manila Times Online.