ADVERTISEMENT
News
Maria Ressa, ex-Rappler researcher ask court to reconsider cyber libel conviction
By NICOLE-ANNE C. LAGRIMAS, GMA News Rappler CEO Maria Ressa and former researcher Reynaldo Santos, Jr. on Monday asked the Manila court that convicted them of cyber libel to reconsider the verdict.
In a 132-page motion for partial reconsideration, Ressa and Santos urged Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa of the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 46 to acquit them and set aside the award of P400,000 in damages in favor of businessman Wilfredo Keng.
Ressa and Santos were sentenced to up to six years of imprisonment two weeks ago over what the court considered a "republication" of an article that was originally published before the anti-cybercrime law was enacted.
The article, written by Santos, cited an "intelligence report" linking Keng to criminal activities. First published in 2012, the story was "updated" in 2014 supposedly just to correct a misspelling — "evation" to "evasion."
In convicting Ressa and Santos, the court also said the crime of cyber libel prescribes in 12 years -- much longer than ordinary libel's prescriptive period of one year.
Critics of the court ruling said it would cause a chilling effect on the press.
Challenging the decision, Rappler's lawyers, the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) said the court erred in characterizing the update of the article as a republication. They also claimed that republication applies only when there is a "substantial modification."
Citing the Supreme Court decision on the cases against the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, FLAG said cyber libel is not a new offense and is instead libel committed in a new manner. The old offense of libel, they said, does not define "republication" as an element of the crime.
ADVERTISEMENT
"There is no reference to the record showing any proof presented by the prosecution that, legally, an 'update' to an online post constitutes a 'criminal' element of 'republication' for purposes of cyber libel," FLAG said.
"The court’s bare assertion, absent any support from the trial Record or any applicable or even persuasive case law, is constitutionally impermissible," they said.
In addition, FLAG claimed that the court erred on the prescriptive period.
The Manila court applied the 12-year prescriptive period, based on Act No. 3326, upon finding that the Cybercrime Prevention Act does not provide its own prescriptive period.
Again citing the Supreme Court in saying cyber libel is not a new crime, FLAG countered that the one-year prescriptive period for the old offense of libel also applies to cyber libel.
The lawyers further argued that the alleged crime of cyber libel has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
FLAG also accused the judge herself, Montesa, of behavior unbecoming of a judge in connection with her statement that Rappler used the "clever ruse" of using the term "executive editor" instead of "editor-in-chief" supposedly to avoid liability for cyber libel.
"The court's role in the trial is to determine malice, not make malicious statements," FLAG said. "Ascribing an underhanded and even unlawful motive—without assertion or proof—is malicious. It is utterly contemptuous and unbecoming of a judge."
FLAG also claimed that the court erred by imposing a penalty of imprisonment instead of fines alone.—AOL, GMA News