QC court acquits ex-People’s Journal reporter of libel

MANILA, Philippines –  After almost 12 long years of court battle,  a veteran journalist has been acquitted by a Quezon City court of libel case filed by former Southern Leyte  Representative Aniceto Saludo.

“In view  of the failure  of the prosecution  to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence of the  accused, judgment  is hereby rendered acquitting accused  Benjamin  Defensor and  Estrelita Valderama of  the  crime,”  said a 14-page  decision signed by Judge Rosa Samson of QC Regional Trial  Court  Branch 105.

The decision was signed on March 25, 2013 but was only released last Monday (April 29, 2013).

The case stemmed from Valderama’s article entitled “Extorting for  text giants,”  which  she wrote and published in People’s  Journal on September 5, 2001.

In her article, Valderama, quoting sources, named Saludo and four  others – then  congressmen   Jacinto Paras, Prospero Pichay Jr., Eduardo Veloso and  Rolex Suplico – as those who  “reportedly received P2 million  each  from telecommunication giants Smart and Globe to slow down on an inquiry into the planned 66 percent reduction of the free text credits of subscribers.”

Saludo strongly denied the allegation and immediately filed a libel case against Valderama and two others –Teodoro Berbano and Benjamin  Defensor,  then publisher and  editor, respectively of  People’s  Journal.

(Valderama   is no longer connected with the paper while Berbano and Defensor  both  passed away.)

But the court pointed out that libel, under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, was defined as a “public  and malicious imputation of a crime or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any at, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.”

While the prosecution  claimed that  the article was defamatory because of the employment of the word “extorting,” the court pointed out that under the current state of jurisprudence, “to be considered malicious, the libellous statement must be shown to  have been written or published with the knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of whether they are false or  not.”

The court then noted  Valderama’s testimony that she tried to   get the sides of all the five former congressmen mentioned  in her article even and after the story was published.

“Following the events as narrated by the accused, the court entertains the belief that accused did in fact exercised a certain degree of case or good faith in her effort to arrive at the truth of the information she received before she had submitted the subject article for publication,”  the decision  read.

‘The prosecution likewise failed to prove that accused was motivated by ill-will to maliciously involve the private complainant in  her questioned article. On this score, it cannot be said that accused has shown to have acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the subject article that was published,” it added.

Even assuming that the contents of the article turned out to be false, the court said, “mere error, inaccuracy or even falsity alone does not prove actual malice.”

“Errors or misstatements are inevitable in any scheme of truly free expression and debate. Consistent with good faith and reasonable care, the press should  not be held to account to a point of suppression for honest mistakes of imperfections in the choice of language. There must be some room for misstatement of fact as well as misjudgement,” it further said.

Valderama, in her Facebook,  gave credit to her  lawyer,  Sidd Penaredondo, who she said, “single-handedly” defended  the case.

“I’m overwhelmed. Congrats should go to my lawyer, Atty Sidd Penaredondo, who stood by me and single-handedly defended me against four lawyers of Aniceto “Dong” Saludo, former congressman of Southern Leyte,” she said.

“It was tough, but we managed to persevere,” she added.