Libel complaint vs CamSur gov, PDI junked

The Makati City prosecutor’s office has junked a libel complaint filed by a former provincial board member against Camarines Sur Gov. Luis Raymundo Villafuerte Jr. and an Inquirer researcher, saying public officials cannot be “too thin-skinned” in handling criticisms.

The case stemmed from an Inquirer story written by the newspaper’s researcher Schatzi Quodala and which appeared on July 22, 2011. Villafuerte revealed what he said was an attempt by the complainant, Carlo Batalla, to extort money from him in exchange for the dropping of graft and corruption charges he had filed against the governor.

Quodala was included in the complaint for writing the report without Batalla’s reactions.

“Complainant enjoys a public stature similar to that of Villafuerte, Jr. and as such complainant cannot clothe himself against public scrutiny and against a defending libeled respondent like Villafuerte Jr.,” the prosecutor’s office said in a resolution.

Promulgated on Dec. 19, 2011, the resolution was written by Assistant Prosecutor Cesar Mitra and approved by Senior Assistant Prosecutor Christopher Garvida.

In dismissing the libel case, it said Villafuerte was just defending himself and explaining to the public the reasons behind the charges Batalla filed against him.

Batalla ran for vice governor during the 2010 elections and as disclosed during the clarificatory hearing intends to run again for the same position in 2013, the resolution stated.

“Thus, with the exchange of libelous charges between complainant and respondent Villafuerte, this office sees no sufficient grounds to hold respondent Villafuerte, Jr. liable for libel as the same was merely an act of self-defense which extends not only to his person but to his reputation as well,” it said.

As for Quodala’s participation, the prosecutor’s office said it didn’t find malice in the story and was convinced that it was written only as reported or as narrated by the source. No personal comments or remarks were included in the story, it added.

“The fact that the article was offensive to the herein complainant does not automatically make a case for libel against the author, publisher and the source. It is still material that the complaint should sufficiently establish actual malice; this office finds none,” it said. Ana Roa, Inquirer Research