Manila RTC convicts Ressa, ex-Rappler researcher of cyber libel
Published Jun 15, 2020 12:00 am
By Minka Tiangco
A Manila court found Rappler chief Maria Ressa and her co-defendant, former researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr. guilty of cyber libel.
Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 46 Judge Rainelda Estacio Montesa sentenced Ressa and Santos to a minimum of six months and one day to a maximum of six years in jail. Ressa and Santos were also ordered to pay businessman Wilfredo Keng ₱200,000 in moral damages and ₱200,000 in exemplary damages.
(AFP / Ted ALJIBE/MANILA BULLETIN)
Rappler, Inc., however, was absolved of corporate liability.
"The right to free speech and freedom of the press cannot and should not be used as a shield against accountability," Montesa said in her 37-page decision.
Rappler counsel Theodore Te said the Court allowed the accused to remain free for now after they each posted a P100,000 bail on February 14, 2019.
The accused were given 15 days to file an appeal. Montesa handed the verdict after an eight-month trial.
The promulgation of the decision was postponed for two months after court operations were temporarily suspended amid the threat of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). During the promulgation, only the accused, their lawyers, and three members of the media were allowed inside the courtroom in observance of physical distancing guidelines.
Keng was absent during the promulgation. His counsel, lawyer Melissa Andaya, said the businessman had problems with his schedule.
Ruling
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Keng about an article written by Santos on May 29, 2012.
In the article, titled "CJ using SUVs of controversial businessman," Santos wrote that then Chief Justice Renato Corona was using a 2011 Chevrolet Suburban that was found to be registered to Keng.
Santos wrote in his article that Keng, who reportedly had a "shady past," was tagged in human trafficking and drug smuggling activities.
The businessman was also allegedly involved in the killing of Manila Councilor Chika Go in 2002 and the smuggling of fake cigarettes.
Montesa said the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of cyber libel. She said the disputed article was defamatory, meaning it ascribed the commission of multiple crimes to Keng that tended to discredit him, and that the words used in the article were "calculated to induce the hearers" to think that he was guilty of certain offenses.
Montesa said Keng has already refuted the accusations against him by presenting letters from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and his National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) clearance, showing he has no criminal record.
In October 2017, Keng filed a complaint with the NBI Cybercrime Division after the article was reportedly republished on February 19, 2014.
Ressa and Santos argued that the offense has already prescribed, but Montesa maintained the offense will only prescribe after 12 years. Since the case was filed on February 5, 2019, prescription has not yet set in.
Chay Hofileña, Rappler's investigative chief, testified in Court that the article was only updated to correct a typographical error.
However, the Court said this is considered hearsay as Hofileña failed to show evidence regarding the typographical error that she was referring to.
Montesa also said the element of malice was present since Santos and Ressa failed to verify the allegations against Keng before publishing the article.
Keng, his then counsel lawyer Leonard De Vera, and Hofileña testified that a certain Katerina Francisco, a former Rappler reporter, was assigned to write about Keng's side on the crimes he was being accused of.
But Hofileña said they were not able to publish the article on Keng's side since they were still verifying the PDEA certification that he sent.
Eventually, the article was buried by more pressing issues.
“The Court is convinced that both accused are aware of the probable falsity of the subject article considering the fact that Atty. De Vera pointed out to Francisco the inaccuracies in the subject article and the receipt of (Marites) Vitug of the said PDEA certification,” Montesa said in her decision.
“Despite such awareness, however, both accused did not bother to publish the clarificatory article and they just let the libelous article remain in their website. A news organization who claims to adhere to accuracy, fairness, and balance in terms of reporting, would have retracted, or at the very least, issued a clarificatory article if there have been some indications of falsity to its previous article," she added.
With regard to Ressa's liability, Hofileña explained that Ressa's role as executive editor does not mean she is heavily involved with the day-to-day editing of stories. But the Court maintained she is liable because she "ultimately makes the decision when the organization reaches an impasse" and she "controls and approves the articles that are to be posted on Rappler's website."
Montesa also pointed out that as Rappler CEO, Ressa "oversees the entire organization" and "has the absolute management responsibility over Rappler, Inc."
"To the mind of the Court, Rappler's scheme of not using the term 'editor-in-chief' in its organizational structure is a clever ruse to avoid liability of the officers of a news organization who can be held responsible for libel under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to RA 10175," she said.
"They used the nomenclature 'executive editor' instead, although clearly the nature of the functions she discharges is still that of an editor as contemplated by law," she added.
'Cautionary tale'
Although the verdict was "devastating," Ressa urged Filipinos to not be afraid and to continue to fight for their rights.
"I appeal to you, the journalists in this room, the Filipinos who are listening, to protect your rights. We are meant to be a cautionary tale. We are meant to make you afraid, right? So, I appeal again, don't be afraid," she said in a press briefing.
"If you don't use your rights, you will lose that. If we don't challenge a brazen move to try and roll back the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, we will lose that. We should not be voluntarily giving up our rights," she said.
"Sa mga Pilipinong nanonood po, hindi lang po ito tungkol sa Rappler, hindi lang po ito tungkol sa amin, tungkol po ito sa inyo (To the Filipinos watching, this is not only about Rappler, this is not only about us, this is about you), because freedom of the press is the foundation of every single right you have as a Filipino citizen," she added.
Ressa, a vocal critic of the administration, also told the government to stop attacking journalists who are only doing their jobs.
"How well are we doing our jobs when we are being personally attacked?" she asked.
"I appeal to government to learn to work with journalists. We are here to help make sure our country learns to run better. We're not your enemy, let us do our jobs," she said.
Ressa and other members of Rappler face at least 10 more court cases, complaints, and investigations regarding alleged tax violations and foreign ownership.
In an official statement, Rappler said the verdict "sets a dangerous precedent" for everyone online.
"It weakens the ability of journalists to hold power to account as the one-year prescription of libel is extended to 12 years," it read.
"This ruling, coupled with the cybercrime law, has made the space for a free press, free speech, and free speech even tighter and narrower."
"The decision today marks not the rule of law, but the rule of the law twisted to suit the interests of those in power who connive to satisfy their mutually beneficial personal and political agenda," it added.
'Not today, Ressa'
In a press statement, Keng claimed he was vindicated following Ressa and Santos' guilty verdict.
"Today, with the judgment of conviction against Ressa and Santos promulgated by the Hon. Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa, I have been vindicated, at least, to the extent possible considering that the damage had already been done," he said.
The businessman stressed that the case he filed against Rappler as a private citizen is not connected to the other cases filed by the government.
"This case is NOT a case of the government. I am a private citizen and this is a private suit. I filed my complaint prior to and independently of any case the Philippine Government may have filed against Ressa," he said.
Keng also denied that the case he filed is way to attack press freedom.
"This is NOT a fight against the Press Freedom, an institution I deeply respect and uphold. For years, I have personally suffered from Rappler’s false accusations against me, which false accusations have no place in a responsible and free press," he said.
"My filing AND winning this case assures Filipinos that published falsehoods will not remain unchallenged and unchecked in this jurisdiction but will instead be dealt with by law, strengthening the people’s respect for the Philippine Media in the years to come," he added.
Keng said he filed another complaint against Ressa before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati.
Read more: Complainant vs. Ressa says he’s ‘vindicated’ by court verdict
(AFP / Ted ALJIBE/MANILA BULLETIN)
Rappler, Inc., however, was absolved of corporate liability.
"The right to free speech and freedom of the press cannot and should not be used as a shield against accountability," Montesa said in her 37-page decision.
Rappler counsel Theodore Te said the Court allowed the accused to remain free for now after they each posted a P100,000 bail on February 14, 2019.
The accused were given 15 days to file an appeal. Montesa handed the verdict after an eight-month trial.
The promulgation of the decision was postponed for two months after court operations were temporarily suspended amid the threat of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). During the promulgation, only the accused, their lawyers, and three members of the media were allowed inside the courtroom in observance of physical distancing guidelines.
Keng was absent during the promulgation. His counsel, lawyer Melissa Andaya, said the businessman had problems with his schedule.
Ruling
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Keng about an article written by Santos on May 29, 2012.
In the article, titled "CJ using SUVs of controversial businessman," Santos wrote that then Chief Justice Renato Corona was using a 2011 Chevrolet Suburban that was found to be registered to Keng.
Santos wrote in his article that Keng, who reportedly had a "shady past," was tagged in human trafficking and drug smuggling activities.
The businessman was also allegedly involved in the killing of Manila Councilor Chika Go in 2002 and the smuggling of fake cigarettes.
Montesa said the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of cyber libel. She said the disputed article was defamatory, meaning it ascribed the commission of multiple crimes to Keng that tended to discredit him, and that the words used in the article were "calculated to induce the hearers" to think that he was guilty of certain offenses.
Montesa said Keng has already refuted the accusations against him by presenting letters from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and his National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) clearance, showing he has no criminal record.
In October 2017, Keng filed a complaint with the NBI Cybercrime Division after the article was reportedly republished on February 19, 2014.
Ressa and Santos argued that the offense has already prescribed, but Montesa maintained the offense will only prescribe after 12 years. Since the case was filed on February 5, 2019, prescription has not yet set in.
Chay Hofileña, Rappler's investigative chief, testified in Court that the article was only updated to correct a typographical error.
However, the Court said this is considered hearsay as Hofileña failed to show evidence regarding the typographical error that she was referring to.
Montesa also said the element of malice was present since Santos and Ressa failed to verify the allegations against Keng before publishing the article.
Keng, his then counsel lawyer Leonard De Vera, and Hofileña testified that a certain Katerina Francisco, a former Rappler reporter, was assigned to write about Keng's side on the crimes he was being accused of.
But Hofileña said they were not able to publish the article on Keng's side since they were still verifying the PDEA certification that he sent.
Eventually, the article was buried by more pressing issues.
“The Court is convinced that both accused are aware of the probable falsity of the subject article considering the fact that Atty. De Vera pointed out to Francisco the inaccuracies in the subject article and the receipt of (Marites) Vitug of the said PDEA certification,” Montesa said in her decision.
“Despite such awareness, however, both accused did not bother to publish the clarificatory article and they just let the libelous article remain in their website. A news organization who claims to adhere to accuracy, fairness, and balance in terms of reporting, would have retracted, or at the very least, issued a clarificatory article if there have been some indications of falsity to its previous article," she added.
With regard to Ressa's liability, Hofileña explained that Ressa's role as executive editor does not mean she is heavily involved with the day-to-day editing of stories. But the Court maintained she is liable because she "ultimately makes the decision when the organization reaches an impasse" and she "controls and approves the articles that are to be posted on Rappler's website."
Montesa also pointed out that as Rappler CEO, Ressa "oversees the entire organization" and "has the absolute management responsibility over Rappler, Inc."
"To the mind of the Court, Rappler's scheme of not using the term 'editor-in-chief' in its organizational structure is a clever ruse to avoid liability of the officers of a news organization who can be held responsible for libel under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to RA 10175," she said.
"They used the nomenclature 'executive editor' instead, although clearly the nature of the functions she discharges is still that of an editor as contemplated by law," she added.
'Cautionary tale'
Although the verdict was "devastating," Ressa urged Filipinos to not be afraid and to continue to fight for their rights.
"I appeal to you, the journalists in this room, the Filipinos who are listening, to protect your rights. We are meant to be a cautionary tale. We are meant to make you afraid, right? So, I appeal again, don't be afraid," she said in a press briefing.
"If you don't use your rights, you will lose that. If we don't challenge a brazen move to try and roll back the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, we will lose that. We should not be voluntarily giving up our rights," she said.
"Sa mga Pilipinong nanonood po, hindi lang po ito tungkol sa Rappler, hindi lang po ito tungkol sa amin, tungkol po ito sa inyo (To the Filipinos watching, this is not only about Rappler, this is not only about us, this is about you), because freedom of the press is the foundation of every single right you have as a Filipino citizen," she added.
Ressa, a vocal critic of the administration, also told the government to stop attacking journalists who are only doing their jobs.
"How well are we doing our jobs when we are being personally attacked?" she asked.
"I appeal to government to learn to work with journalists. We are here to help make sure our country learns to run better. We're not your enemy, let us do our jobs," she said.
Ressa and other members of Rappler face at least 10 more court cases, complaints, and investigations regarding alleged tax violations and foreign ownership.
In an official statement, Rappler said the verdict "sets a dangerous precedent" for everyone online.
"It weakens the ability of journalists to hold power to account as the one-year prescription of libel is extended to 12 years," it read.
"This ruling, coupled with the cybercrime law, has made the space for a free press, free speech, and free speech even tighter and narrower."
"The decision today marks not the rule of law, but the rule of the law twisted to suit the interests of those in power who connive to satisfy their mutually beneficial personal and political agenda," it added.
'Not today, Ressa'
In a press statement, Keng claimed he was vindicated following Ressa and Santos' guilty verdict.
"Today, with the judgment of conviction against Ressa and Santos promulgated by the Hon. Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa, I have been vindicated, at least, to the extent possible considering that the damage had already been done," he said.
The businessman stressed that the case he filed against Rappler as a private citizen is not connected to the other cases filed by the government.
"This case is NOT a case of the government. I am a private citizen and this is a private suit. I filed my complaint prior to and independently of any case the Philippine Government may have filed against Ressa," he said.
Keng also denied that the case he filed is way to attack press freedom.
"This is NOT a fight against the Press Freedom, an institution I deeply respect and uphold. For years, I have personally suffered from Rappler’s false accusations against me, which false accusations have no place in a responsible and free press," he said.
"My filing AND winning this case assures Filipinos that published falsehoods will not remain unchallenged and unchecked in this jurisdiction but will instead be dealt with by law, strengthening the people’s respect for the Philippine Media in the years to come," he added.
Keng said he filed another complaint against Ressa before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati.
Read more: Complainant vs. Ressa says he’s ‘vindicated’ by court verdict