Tribune publisher Olivares appeals libel conviction
By DJ Yap
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 16:24:00 06/20/2008
MANILA, Philippines -- Ninez Cacho-Olivares, publisher of The Daily Tribune, on Friday appealed her libel conviction by a Makati judge for a June 2003 story about a top law firm's purported influence over the Philippine judiciary.
Olivares filed a motion for reconsideration before Judge Winlove Dumayas of Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 59, who three weeks ago sentenced her to a six-month to two-year prison term and ordered her to pay P5 million in damages.
In her 58-page motion filed Friday morning, Olivares argued that the court committed 17 errors in his decision, one of which was convicting her for a crime she had not been charged with in the first place.
She said the information or charge sheet did not include CVC Law, formerly Villaraza & Angangco Law Offices and also known as "The Firm," as a party to the case, only the private complainant, F. Arthur Villaraza.
But in the course of the trial, the court accepted evidence submitted by CVC Law, whose appearance Olivares had questioned, she said.
"It was like charging Ms. Olivares with a crime against person A but convicting her for libel against persons B and A," her lawyer, Alexis Medina, told reporters in a press conference that followed the filing of the motion.
Olivares also said the conviction was wrong in that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that malice had been intended in writing the story, a requisite element in any libel conviction.
She pointed out that the only statement she said of Villaraza in the questioned article dated June 28, 2003, was that he was the "private lawyer of the President," which she said was in itself devoid of any defamatory imputation.
The journalist added that such a statement had even been proved to be factual as the prosecution itself had admitted.
Villaraza used to be President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s lawyer.
She further said Dumayas erred in saying Villaraza "is not a public figure for purposes of libel law, considering that he is not a public official but a private lawyer."
Citing Supreme Court jurisprudence, she said Villaraza, as the President's personal lawyer, satisfied the definition of a public figure who "by his accomplishments" or "by adopting a profession or calling, [gave] the public a legitimate interest in his doings, his affairs and his character."
Olivares also questioned Dumayas' decision to impose a prison term, which she said runs counter to a recent Supreme Court circular advising lower courts of the tribunal’s preference for the imposition of fines for libel convictions instead of jail term.
Sought for comment, John Balisnomo, a partner at CVC Law, said Olivares' argument that the law firm was not a party to the case had already been exhausted during trial and ended with Dumayas' ruling that the firm was a rightful complainant.
He said the fact that the defense cross-examined the witnesses presented by the law firm was proof that they had effectively waived their objection to CVC Law’s appearance.
Balisnomo also argued that neither the law firm nor Villaraza could be considered public figures just by mere association to the President, noting that their practice of the legal profession remained private.
On the argument that Dumayas did not heed the SC circular expressing preference for fines over jail penalty in libel convictions, Balisnomo said the circular left it to the judge's discretion whether to impose a fine or a jail term.
He said the law firm supported Dumayas' decision to impose a prison term on Olivares.
The libel case was filed by CVC Law and F. Arthur Villaraza based on Olivares' article titled "Firm's partners ensure victory for AEDC" and published in the Tribune on June 28, 2003.
CVC Law used to count the First Family among its clients.
In her article, Olivares wrote that then Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo had tapped lawyers "connected" to The Firm to handle a complaint by its client, Asia's Emerging Dragons Corp. (AEDC), against the winning bidder in the build-operate-transfer contract for the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3.
Olivares subsequently ran a series of articles alleging that Villaraza committed "illegal and reprehensible acts amounting to bribery and violated the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act" in connection with the scrapped Ninoy Aquino International Airport-Terminal 3 (NAIA 3) project.
The articles claimed that Villaraza had demanded $20 million from the German firm Fraport AG, foreign partner of Philippine International Air Terminal Co. (PIATCo) in the project, in exchange for solving its legal troubles. The German firm had a falling out with its Filipino partner.
The NAIA-3 contract was nullified by the Supreme Court on May 5, 2003, for being contrary to public policy and disadvantageous to the government.
In his decision, Dumayas pointed out that Olivares' article was "derogatory to the persons of the private complainants."
"The title alone already imputes to the complainants deceit and dishonesty, and the manipulation of government agencies to the benefit of AEDC…The complainants were consistently referred to as having a hold on the Arroyo administration's legal arena, who have pervasive power and influence in the country's judiciary," part of the decision read.
Dumayas also said Villaraza et al. were "no doubt exposed to public contempt and ridicule."
He said Olivares did not exercise efforts to verify the truth of her derogatory statements before publishing the article.
|
