Gov’t lawyers eye cyberlibel raps vs Manibela leader

Manibela chair Mar Valbuena. (Photo courtesy of Manibela Facebook)

State prosecutors recommended the filing of cyber-libel charges against Mario Valbuena Jr., head of transport group Manibela, over his allegations of corruption against Transportation Secretary Jaime Bautista.

In a 17-page resolution dated Feb. 22 but made public only recently, Assistant Prosecutor Maria Kristhina Paat-Salumbides said probable cause was established to warrant the filing of a case against Valbuena for two counts of violations of Article 355, in relation to Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, in further relation to Section 4(c)4 of RA (Republic Act) 10175, or the Cyber Crime Prevention Act.”

READ: QCPD files raps vs Manibela for disruptive behavior during strike

However, the complaint for grave threats was dismissed.

The corruption allegations against Bautista came after former Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) Senior Executive Assistant Jeffrey Tumbado revealed the alleged anomalies in the bureau.

In a news briefing on Oct. 9, 2023, Tumbado alleged that the LTFRB and Department of Transportation officials were practicing a “ruta (route)-for-sale” scheme, requiring operators to pay up to P5 million to secure routes, franchises and special permits.

READ: Manibela, Piston to hold more protests vs PUVMP

Tumbado, however, retracted his statements two days later.

Valbuena reacted to the issue and his statements were aired on television, social media and video-sharing platform YouTube.

Malice?

According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), Valbuena’s words were libelous because of “malicious imputation of a criminal act punishable under the Revised Penal Code and special penal laws, such as RA No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), which tends to cause dishonor, discredit and contempt of the complainant.”

The DOJ noted that in a live video uploaded on Manibela transport group’s Facebook page, the words uttered by Valbuena were intended to “mock, malign and injure the reputation, credit and virtue of complainant, with the intention of exposing him (Bautista) to public hatred, discredit, contempt and ridicule,” hence, the existence of malice.

In dismissing the grave threat complaint, the prosecutor said the statement merely challenged the complainant and was not intended to threaten Bautista.

In his response to the complaint, Valbuena said his remarks were “a genuine expression of opinion” and a “protected speech” addressed to a public figure and officer.