QC court dismisses case vs. teacher over viral VIP traffic stop video

 

MANILA, Philippines – The Quezon City Regional Trial Court (QCRTC) has dismissed the complaint filed by the police against a teacher for uploading a viral video of police officers stopping traffic supposedly to give way to a very important person (VIP) along Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City.

In a four-page order, the QCRTC Branch 104 called the complaint “fatally defective” despite allowing the prosecution to cure the defects through an Amended Information.

Here, Janus Munar is accused of violating Article 154 of the Revised Penal Code or Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances.

The said provision penalizes any person who publishes or causes to publish false news, which may endanger the public order or cause damage to the interests of the state.

The case was filed against Munar for uploading a video where the complainant, Executive M/Sgt. Verdo Pantollano was depicted as stopping traffic along Commonwealth Avenue to give way to a VIP identified in the video as “VP Sara.”

The police denied mentioning Vice President Sara Duterte’s name in the video.

The prosecution submitted an amended information. However, the court said despite amending the case against Munar, it still failed to indicate that the video uploading would cause damage to the interest or credit of the state.

“Unfortunately for the prosecution, while they had the opportunity to cure the defects when the court allowed the admission of the Amended Information, the same remains fatally defective,” it said.

The court said the phrase “further propagates the public disorder caused by the incident” mentioned in its amended Information, was fatal to the prosecution’s case against Munar.

It explained that Article 154, paragraph 1 contemplates a situation where the publication itself is the source of the endangerment to public order, not just a fuel to the fire.

“By the very words used in the Amended Information, there is no public disorder but merely a string of events that have supposedly damaged and prejudiced the private complainant,” the court said.

It added that Munar’s comment in the video “simply reiterated a fact which is of public knowledge…That he cannot be made liable for the comment he made in the video he shared.”