Libel rap vs Inquirer ed, reporter junked

Former Camarines Sur Gov. Luis “LRay” Villafuerte Jr. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO/JUAN ESCANDOR JR./INQUIRER SOUTHERN LUZON

Former Camarines Sur Gov. Luis “LRay” Villafuerte Jr. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO/JUAN ESCANDOR JR./INQUIRER SOUTHERN LUZON

MANILA, Philippines–The Makati City Prosecutor’s Office recently released a resolution dismissing the libel case filed by former Camarines Sur Gov. Luis Raymund (LRay) Villafuerte Jr. against Philippine Daily Inquirer managing editor Joey Nolasco and reporter Gil Cabacungan for publishing a story about the ex-governor facing graft charges in the Sandiganbayan.

In a resolution on Sept. 18, Assistant City Prosecutor Billy Evangelista said the Inquirer article published on Aug. 7, 2013, did not cause “dishonor, discredit or contempt of the complainant.”

“Respondents merely made a factual report, that is, complainant is facing charges before the Sandiganbayan. Since there is nothing defamatory per se in the said article, malice cannot be presumed,” the resolution read.

The Inquirer article discussed Villafuerte’s case, which stemmed from his alleged involvement in the purchase of P20-million worth of fuel in 2010 from a single proprietor without a public bidding.

Former CamSur provincial board member Carlos Batalla accused Villafuerte of purchasing fuel for the provincial capitol from Naga Petro Fuel Express Zone in Naga City, bypassing the proper channels.

The former CamSur governor slapped Cabacungan and Nolasco with a libel case, saying the article was “defamatory which tarnished his good reputation, sincerity and integrity.”

His complaint noted that the article even used the word “desperate” to describe his action on the graft case.

The resolution, however, stated that a thorough evaluation of the evidence led the Office of the Prosecutor to decide that there was lack of probable cause.

It added that using the word “desperate” only created an impression that Villafuerte “has a lost cause and his arrest and detention are a certainty.”

The decision also noted that there was nothing defamatory in the article, adding that the assertion that the article put Villafuerte’s name in a bad light “is merely an impression, a conclusion that may not necessarily be true to others.”–Maricar B. Brizuela

Read more...