Ressa, ex-Rappler researcher appeal cyber libel conviction

June 30 ------ Rappler chief Maria Ressa and former researcher Reynaldo Santos, Jr. on Monday (June 29) filed a motion for partial reconsideration before a Manila court to appeal their cyber libel conviction. Ressa and Santos’ lawyers from the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) submitted a 132-page motion to the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 46, citing at least 13 alleged errors that Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa committed in her verdict. “With due respect, the court’s Decision is not only wrong, it is also void; unless reconsidered, it will continue to stain the accused’s reputation and result in greater injustice to accused as well as expose this court to the necessary consequences of its error,” the motion read.

Republication

Among the arguments in the motion include the court’s consideration of an update without substantial change as a republication. Businessman Wilfredo Keng filed a complaint against the two over a May 2012 article where, citing an intelligence report and a news story, Santos wrote that he was tagged in human trafficking and drug smuggling activities, as well as the killing of a Manila City councilor in 2002. The article was updated in February 2014 to correct a typo.

According to the motion, Montesa failed to provide even a single reference, out of 170 footnotes in her 36-page decision, that supported her statement that an update is a republication of an article. “The court’s bare assertion, absent any support from the trial Record or any applicable or even persuasive case law, is constitutionally impermissible,” the motion read. “The pronouncement amounts to a ‘judicial ambush’ that so offends every notion of judicial propriety and basic fairness as to lend itself to nullity.”

Prescriptive period

In the motion, they also questioned the court’s decision to apply Republic Act (RA) No. 3326 as the basis for the prescriptive period for cyber libel, making it 12 years, when it supposedly should have applied Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) as amended by RA 4461. Citing a ruling by the Supreme Court, they argued that cyber libel is not a new offense, but is only a different means to commit an existing offense. Therefore, the one-year prescriptive period for libel should be followed.

Keng filed his complaint in October 2017, five years after the article was originally published and three years after the update was made. The motion also pointed out that the Supreme Court imposed a temporary restraining order on RA 10175 — the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 –from October 9, 2012 to April 22, 2014, making it inoperative at the time the update was made on the article.

Ressa’s title

The motion also faulted Montesa for her “unwarranted and prejudicial” characterization of Ressa’s title as Rappler’s executive editor. In her decision, Montesa said that not calling Ressa an “editor-in-chief” is a “clever ruse” to avoid liability in these situations. “There is absolutely no basis for this,” the motion read. “The court’s role in the trial is to determine malice, not make malicious statements. Ascribing an underhanded and even unlawful motive—without assertion or proof—is malicious. It is utterly contemptuous and unbecoming of a judge.”

During the trial, Chay Holifeña, chief of Rappler’s investigative team, explained that while Ressa is seen as the head of the organization and is involved in the company’s finances, she is not heavily involved in their day-to-day operations. The motion pointed out that other publications also use the said title. They also maintained that there is no proof that Ressa and Santos “willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly re-published” the contested article.

Private complainant?

Montesa said in her ruling that Keng is a private person, but Ressa and Santos’ lawyers argue that he is already a public figure. Citing the Ayer vs. Capulong case, the motion argued that a public figure is “anyone who has arrived at a position where public attention is focused upon him in a person.” With this, malice was something that the prosecution should have been made to prove on the part of the accused, and not simply presumed. Ressa and Santos were found guilty of cyber libel on June 15 and were sentenced to up to six years in prison. They were also ordered to pay Keng a total of P400,000 in moral and exemplary damages.

Source: mb.com.ph