ADVERTISEMENT
NUPL: Some legal bases of Ressa, ex-Rappler researcher’s conviction ‘inapplicable’
By JULIA MARI ORNEDO,GMA News
The National Union of Peoples' Lawyers (NUPL) on Monday said some of the laws and cases that were used as basis by a Manila court in convicting the chief and a former researcher-writer of the news website Rappler were “inapplicable” to the cyber libel case.
Rappler CEO Maria Ressa and former researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr. were convicted
of cyber libel earlier on Monday over a 2012 story on businessman Wilfredo Keng. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/742625/court-convicts-maria-ressa-ex-researcher-of-cyber-libel/story/Prescription
In a legal opinion, the NUPL rejected Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa’s use of Act No. 3326 in saying that cyberlibel crimes prescribe after 12 years.
The NUPL countered that the libel being referred to in the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 “refers to the very same libel punishable under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).”
The group also noted that Republic Act 4661 amended Article 90 of the RPC, which states that “the crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.”
“In short, Act. No. 3326, in its entirety cannot be applied. Article 90 should have been the basis for the determination of the prescriptive period for libel which is one year. Hence, the case filed has already prescribed,” the NUPL said.
ADVERTISEMENT
Republication
The group also said no republication of Rappler’s story took place.
The story was edited in 2014 to correct a minor spelling error.
The NUPL said the cases Brillante vs CA and Soriano vs IAC, which were “heavily” relied upon by Montesa on the topic of the multiple publication rule, were “inapplicable” to Ressa and Santos’ case.
“The February 19, 2014 article in question cannot be considered as a republication being a mere updated version of the May 29, 2012 version,” the NUPL maintained.
The group explained that the multiple publication rule “means that a statement that is defamatory is published every time it is seen or delivered to a third person,” adding that courts outside Philippine jurisdiction have been adopting a single publication rule due to the challenges posed by widespread distribution of content through the internet.
The lawyers also pointed out that the disputed article was originally published months before the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 took effect.
“Criminal laws shall have no retroactive effect unless they are beneficial to the accused,” they said. —LDF, GMA News