Court denies motion for reconsideration of Ressa, ex-Rappler researcher in cyber libel case

The Regional Trial Court Branch 46 in Manila on Friday denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Rappler CEO Maria Ressa and former researcher Reynaldo Santos, Jr. in the cyber libel case they were convicted of.

In a 13-page decision, Presiding Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa denied their motion for partial consideration “for lack of merit.”

Ressa and Santos were sentenced to up to six years of imprisonment in June over what the court considered a "republication" of an article that was originally published before the anti-cybercrime law was enacted. 

The two remain free after being granted post-conviction bail.

Businessman Wilfredo Keng filed the cyber libel complaint before the Department of Justice over a 2012 Rappler article written by Santos linking him to human trafficking and drug smuggling.

“This court finds that there is no cogent or compelling reason to reconsider its decision… discussion has been exhaustively made and no new matters were raised,” the decision read.

In their motion,  Santos and Ressa said that the court erred in its dismissal of the testimonies of the defense witnesses.

However, the court reiterated that the witness’ testimony was considered hearsay as the defense failed to establish the witness  had personal knowledge of the typographical error which caused the republication of the article.

Santos and Ressa also alleged that the court erred in not considering the proposed intervention of a United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right of freedom of opinion and expression.

However, the court said that the intervention of an amicus curiae was subject to its discretion, adding that it found no compelling reason to allow the intervention.

Both Santos and Ressa also argued that the court erred in sentencing imprisonment and not fines, citing Supreme Court Administrative Circular 08-08, which served as the guidelines for the imposition of penalties in ordinary libel.

According to the court, cyberlibel is different from ordinary libel. It argued that as RA 10195 imposed a higher penalty for cyberlibel than ordinary libel, it “deemed it proper to impose the penalty of punishment."

The court later added that it is “mandated to decide solely on the basis of the evidence presented by the parties and to apply the law.” — with a report from Joahna Lei Casilao/KG/LBG, GMA News