Lawyer, 18 'maleta boys' to face cyber libel raps

The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it has approved the filing of multiple criminal cases against lawyer Levi Baligod and the so-called “maleta boys,” whom some have claimed were former members of the Philippine Marines. Based on the DOJ-approved resolutions, the 18 “maleta boys” will be charged with 10 separate cases that include: Six counts of cyber libel under Section 4(c)4 of Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 Four counts of perjury Meanwhile, here are the 18 “maleta boys” who will be charged: Belnard Tube Rosebert Waupan Benny Bulontate Johnny Buduan Rodante Orbillo Reyneboy Julian Christopher Esquivel George Villalon, Jr. Romeo Rommel Bobares Gil Navidad, Jr. Anselmo Taberdo Joely Cadiao Rommel Galapon Cecilio Larroder, Jr. Bernard Gumban Crisanie Dado Fidel Corpuz Walter Manalansan Baligod, who handled the so-called “marines,” was indicted for four counts cyber libel too. Three jointly with the “maleta boys” and one in individual capacity, said DOJ spokesperson Rafael Martinez. “The findings were reached after an evaluation of the evidence submitted by the parties during preliminary investigation. The approval of the recommendations constitutes a determination, for purposes of preliminary investigation, that prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction exists,” the DOJ said. “We’ll file [a motion for reconsideration. [The] DOJ panel of investigators and PG (Prosecutor General Richard) Fadullon erred: (1) on the cyber libel, there is no proof that any one of us “posted in social media” the Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay; and, (2) on the perjury case, the established truth is the evident credibility of the randomly selected 8 of the 18 former soldiers as stated in the public announcement of the Office of the Ombudsman,” Baligod said. So what did the DOJ find? Why will it file cases against these individuals who claimed that they allegedly delivered money to certain officials? What happened before Former senator Antonio Trillanes filed two sets of complaints in March against the so-called marines and certain personalities. At the height of the International Criminal Court (ICC) pre-trial hearings on the crimes against humanity cases of former president Rodrigo Duterte, the ex-marines’ affidavit circulated, alleging that they made cash deliveries to Trillanes to partly fund the ICC investigation. “Attorney Baligod staged a live, televised circus to malign reputations and put the lives of genuine ICC witnesses at risk. Now that his fifteen minutes of fame are over, he and his cohorts who provided him the platform will finally face the legal consequences of their tall tales,” Trillanes said. Trillanes also filed complaints against others, including Lorraine Badoy, Byron “Banat By” Cristobal, and network SMNI News Channel. However, the DOJ junked the complaints against them for lack of evidence. The DOJ’s threshold in filing cases should be prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction, which means a case should lead to conviction when filed before a court. DOJ’s conclusion Cyber libel has five elements: Allegation of a discreditable act or condition Publication Identifiability Existence of malice Alleged defamation is committed through a computer system or other similar means According to the panel of prosecutors, the respondents’ statements accusing Trillanes of allegedly receiving $2 million from former Ako Bicol representative Zaldy Co for the ICC investigation were defamatory. “Such imputations are unquestionably defamatory as they tend to expose complainant Trillanes to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, or discredit within the contemplation of Article 353 of the RPC (Revised Penal Code),” said the resolution. “The assertion of some of the respondents that they merely disclosed matters contained in the Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay, reported on matters of public concern, or commented on an ongoing public controversy constitutes a matter of defense bearing on the existence of malice or the applicability of privileged communication. It does not negate the existence of the defamatory imputation itself,” it added. Other elements, such as publication, identifiability, among others were met, according to the prosecution. For cyber crime, the DOJ explained that criminal liability still depends on the evidence that the particular respondent “knowingly utilized or caused the utilization of such computer system in publishing the defamatory imputation.” “As earlier discussed, the records sufficiently establish such participation only on the part ofrespondents Atty. Baligod and Tube, et al., but not as to the remaining respondents against whom the evidence merely shows participation in public commentary, interviews, or media discussions,” the resolution added. Likewise, prosecutors found prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction against the 18 “maleta boys” for perjury. – Rappler.com