Court junks libel case vs 93-yr-old Baguio editor

BAGUIO CITY—A court here on Tuesday acquitted the editor and the publisher of a local weekly of libel charges filed by the city budget officer in 2006.

In a 13-page decision, Regional Trial Court Judge Antonio Reyes cited an American case that guaranteed freedom of expression and of the press when he acquitted Cecille Afable, 93, editor of the Baguio Midland Courier, and Charles Hamada, the weekly’s publisher.

The case stemmed from an excerpt from a Courier editorial which the complainant, lawyer Leticia Clemente, said alluded to her. The editorial, “Da Panagbenga,” was published in the Courier’s Jan. 29, 2006 issue.

While she was not named in the editorial, Clemente said she found this excerpt to be malicious:

“… The people of Baguio are just not carabaos whose nose rings make them easy to lead. If there is no Panagbenga that caused the dissension and division in Baguio, this would be a dead city. The dissension brought out such interesting gossip and funny stories like: the finance officer who signs for (Mayor Mauricio) Domogan’s monthly allowances; that this finance lady can accommodate two romances at the same time. This can be a dirty joke.”

Clemente sought P1 million in damages and legal expenses.

The court, however, said the excerpt cited by Clemente was not libelous because it did not satisfy all requirements set by law.

It said for an imputation to be libelous, it must be defamatory, malicious, given publicity and the victim must be identifiable.

“Absent one of these elements precludes the commission of the crime of libel,” Reyes said.

He said the first requirement was absent. “In determining whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are to be construed in their entirety and should be taken in their plain, natural and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by the persons reading them…,” he said.

Reyes said there was also no malice imputed in the editorial and it failed to show that the “finance officer” or the “finance lady” and Clemente “are one and the same person.”

“The testimony of the private complainant herself proves that the ‘finance officer’ or ‘finance lady’ alluded to in the subject editorial cannot specifically pertain to her,” said Reyes.

“She, herself, admitted that she was not finance officer,” the judge said. Desiree Caluza, Inquirer Northern Luzon