BY JEFFREY G. DAMICOG
*
RAPPLER chief executive officer (CEO) Maria Ressa and former reporter Reynaldo Santos Jr. need not end up in jail following their conviction for cyberlibel, Presidential Spokesman Harry Roque said on Tuesday.
“Walang kulong ‘yan. If they want they can apply for probation and they can be scot free,” the former trial lawyer said during an interview over CNN Philippines.
“But when they appeal and they lose their appeal then they have to serve time because that is what happened to Alex Adonis,” he warned, referring to the case of the former Davao-based radio broadcaster who got convicted of libel filed by former House Speaker Prospero Nograles
Roque had represented Adonis who read in 2001 a newspaper item that said Nograles was found running naked along a hotel hallway after being caught having an affair with a married woman.
Presiding Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa of Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 46 on Monday declared Ressa and Santos guilty of violating the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
Both of them were sentenced to suffer imprisonment ranging from six months and one day up to six years. They were also ordered to ₱200,000 as moral damages and ₱ 200,000 as exemplary damages.
The cyberlibel case stemmed from the May 29, 2012 article of Santos Jr. published on Rappler’s website.
Titled “CJ Using SUVs of Controversial Businessman,” the article read that then Chief Justice Renato Corona was using a 2011 Chevrolet Subarban which was found registered to Keng whom Santos described as “shady” and involved in various crimes including illegal drugs and murder.
At that time, Corona was facing an impeachment complaint.
Roque said under our laws malice is already presumed in law when the complainant is a private individual.
“The complainant does not have to prove there was actual malice, the law presumes that there was and it is the burden of the defense to overcome this presumption,” he explained.
After reading the court’s decision, Roque expressed surprise upon learning lawyer Theodore Te, the legal counsel of Ressa and Santos, did not present any defense to disprove malice.
“I read the decision and I was surprised there was no defense evidence offered to prove the absence of malice,” he observed.
“They only presented two witnesses and there was really no witness who took the stand to say that they went out of their way to verify their facts,” he added.
