Guilty verdict metes P6,000 fine for columnist; Lastimosa: An unfair warning to critical media

A Cebu judge yesterday found veteran broadcaster and columnist Leo Lastimosa guilty of libel for columns he wrote about former Cebu governor Gwendolyn Garcia in 2007.

The verdict came barely two weeks before the Cebu media marks its annual Press Freedom Week celebration on Sept. 15-21.

Lastimosa was ordered to pay a P6,000 fine and damages of P2 million.

His Cebuano columns in The Freeman six years ago referred to a fish vendor called “Doling Kawatan” (Doling the thief) when he criticized alleged irregularities in the construction of the Cebu International Convention Center.

After the verdict was read yesterday, Lastimosa told reporters he would appeal the decision before the Court of Appeals.

He lamented that the decision was “unfair” and seemed to be warning the media not to be critical of government officials. (See story on page 2).

Garcia, who won a seat in Congress last May representing Cebu’s 3rd district, issued a terse reaction by text: “The decision of the case will speak for itself.”

Her lawyer Lito Astillero, said the court’s ruling was a vindication for his client.

“The court has spoken. It was proven that there was indeed a malicious imputation against the former governor. We feel that justice has been served,” Astillero said.

Lastimosa continues to write a weekly column in the Freeman but is better known in TV and radio as the anchor of the daily TV Patrol Central Visayas and manager of radio station dyAB.

Allegations of overpricing and other irregularitiesi in the contstruction of the provnce-owned CICC for the 2007 ASEAN Summit are part of a pending investigation by the Ombudsman’s Office.

Garcia’s separate graft case over the purchase of the Balili estate, whose lots were mostly under water, is pending trial before the Sandiganbayan. In both cases, Garcia has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in these transaction under her administration.

Judge Raphael B. Yrastorza Sr. of the Cebu City Regional Trial Court ordered Lastimosa to pay a fine of P6,000 “with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency”.

Lastimosa’s lawyer, Celso Espinosa, said they would appeal the decision before the Court of Appeals.

During the trial, Lastimosa’s counsel said “Doling” was not the governor and that the fish vendor described in the column was a fictional characted used an an allegory in writing about an issue of public interest.

But the court said that Lastimosa in his June 29, 2007 column portrayed Garcia as a “thief, corrupt, arrogant, vindictive, ill-tempered, foul-mouthed, and cruel”.

“The communication created through his column [titled] ‘Si Doling Kawatan’ was seething with spite and venom so to speak. The title itself and the first part of the said article already implied that she [Garcia] is a thief and corrupt,” said the court.

Lastimosa stood in the court room as the 38-page decision was read aloud by the clerk of court in yesterday’s case promulgation. It took an hour and 45 minutes to finish.

“All the above epithets against Gov. Garcia have not been proven in a court of law. At the time the libelous words were written, no case was yet filed against her charging her for theft and/or corruption…,” the judge added.

Garcia filed two libel complaints against Lastimosa. One was dismissed.

The libel case which stemmed from his column titled “Paugat Ni Gwen,” was dismissed by Judge Geraldine Faith Econg in February 2009 after the parties agreed to settle their differences amicably.

Garcia also filed a civil suit against Lastimosa for “abuse of rights” before the RTC in her hometown of Barili, southwest Cebu but the complaint was also dismissed since it was filed in the wrong venue.

The libel complaint before Judge Yrastorza was the remaining case filed by Garcia against Lastimosa.

All elements present

In his decision, Judge Yrastorza said all the elements of the crime of libel were present. There was an allegation of a discreditable act, publication of the accusations, identity of the person defamed, and existence of malice.

“The court cannot, but conclude, without an iota of doubt that accused (Lastimosa) had described Gov. Garcia as thief, corrupt, arrogant…,” Yrastorza said.

The judge noted that Lastimosa had written prior articles about Garcia that “besmirched” her reputation.

From Nov. 9, 2006 to June 2, 2007, there were at least 40 instances when Lastimosa criticized Garcia’s policies and actions. Judge Yrastorza said these previous articles could be used as evidence to prove a “specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom, or usage and the like.”

“The court no longer delves into the other statements as it considered the same as self-explanatory: libelous,” said the judge.

“The court had observed that after Gov. Garcia had filed the two cases in different courts, accused seemed not to have heeded such clear warning… He continued his attacks, this time hiding behind the pseudonym ‘Doling’,” the judge added.

In the previous articles, Lastimosa was cited for accusing the Cebu governor of having a “bloated private pocket” due to the construction of the CICC in Mandaue City.

Witnesses

The prosecution presented as its witnesses Garcia, Pinamungahan Mayor Glenn Baricuatro, and lawyer Pachico Seares, public and standards editor of Sun Star Cebu.

Seares , however, was considered by the court as an independent witness.

Seares, who was a professor at the University of the Philippines in Cebu, shared the results of a survey in his class about Lastimosa’s column.

After reading the column in class, nine out of his 15 students identified the character “Doling” as Garcia, said the editor.

Baricuatro, who used to be a staffer of Garcia’s brother Pablo John, said he was able to identify Doling as the former governor. When she testified in court, then Governor Garcia said the accusations in the column were meant to destroy her reputation.

She said she was extremely disturbed by what she called an attack on her and her family’s honor.Garcia said she had to reassure her children and their families that she never fed, clothed, and sheltered them using ill-gotten money.

Lastimosa, in his defense, said “Doling” was not the governor and that the fish vendor described in the column was an an allegory he used in writing about an issue of public interest.

The defense also presented lawyer Democrito Barcenas who said “Doling” does not refer to Garcia since she was obviously not a fish vendor nor elected as barangay captain as the column portrayed.

Freedom limitations

Quoting a Supreme Court ruling, the judge ssaid press freedom was “not absolute” and that Lastimosa’s column does not fall under “privileged communications” that enjoy protection of this freedom.

He said freedom of the press has long been upheld when it comes to commentaries made on public figures and matters of public interest.

“But even as we strive to protect and respect the fourth estate, the freedom it enjoys must be balanced with responsibility. There is a fine line between freedom of expression and libel and it calls on the courts to determine whether or not that line has been crossed,” the judge said.

“Even in cases wherein the freedom of the press was given greater weight over the rights of individuals, the court, however has stressed that such freedom is not absolute and unbounded,” he said quoting the Supreme Court.