Makati prosecutors junk Jasmine Curtis-Smith complaint vs Topacio

Makati prosecutors have dismissed the complaint filed by actress Jasmine Curtis-Smith against lawyer Ferdinand Topacio for cyberlibel, unjust vexation, and gender-based online sexual harassment over his remarks against her. In a 13-page joint resolution dated July 1, the Makati City Prosecutor’s Office found that there was lack of prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction to charge Topacio with the said crimes. “This Office finds that the subject statements were made in relation to the remarks made by Cong. Jesus ‘Bong’ Suntay relative to the impeachment hearing of Vice President Sara Duterte,” it said. “For this reason, this Office finds that respondent’s statements, though highly critical, do not constitute defamation as it is akin to a fair commentary on matters of public interest, covered by qualified communication,” the resolution added. To recall, Suntay previously said during a hearing at the House of Representatives that when he saw Anne Curtis, Jasmine Curtis-Smith’s sister, he had “a desire inside [him] and that he was ‘heated’.” Following the lawmaker's remarks, Topacio defended Suntay in his radio program, where he then criticized Curtis-Smith for condemning Suntay’s statements. Topacio said, “Kayong mga artista ha, ‘yung mga ganyan… ikaw Jasmine, bakit ka nagpo-post ng mga bikini picture mo sa social media, sa mga pahayagan? Hindi ba para ikaw ay pagnasaan? Para ikaw ay sumikat?” (You actors and actresses… Jasmine, why do you post your bikini photos on social media and in the newspapers? Isn’t it so that people will lust after you? So that you will become famous?) The prosecutors said that, at most, Topacio’s statements “may have been sharp, insulting, or offensive.” However, it said that offensiveness does not equate to actual malice. Meanwhile, the prosecutors said there is insufficient evidence to hold Topacio liable for unjust vexation. They also said that the evidence on record was insufficient to show that Topacio’s acts were done in a manner that terrorized or intimidated Curtis-Smith or they were calculated to harm her reputation. “Complainant failed to present competent proof demonstrating how respondent's specific actuations crossed the threshold from mere offensiveness or disagreement into conduct intended or likely to cause the kind of mental, emotional, or psychological distress and reputational injury contemplated by the law on gender-based online sexual harassment,” it said. In a statement, Topacio reiterated that there was nothing personal in his utterances. “I wish to restate to Ms. Curtis-Smith that there was nothing personal in my utterances, but they were naught but part of legitimate political debate,” he said. He also expressed hope for the legislature to “decriminalize what is supposed to be constitutionally-protected speech.” —RF, GMA News