|
Friday, February 10, 2006
Malilong: Libelous statement
By Frank Malilong
The Other Side
WHEN I was a young lawyer, I represented a friend who was sued for making disparaging remarks about a fighting cock. For some inexplicable reason, the prosecutor found probable cause against my client and filed an information for libel in court.
After the arraignment, the judge asked the complainant what the beef was. “Well, Your Honor,” he answered. “The accused maligned my reputation by refusing to pit his fighting cock against mine on the ground that his was imported while mine was local.”
“Your Honor,” said my client. “I have no doubt whatsoever that the complainant loves his cock, perhaps more than he does his wife. I would not be surprised if he stroked his cock every day, bathed it and exercised it regularly. I admit that I did say that I was not interested in his cock but really, do I have to go to jail for saying so?”
“This promises to be interesting,” the judge nodded and, addressing the complainant, asked: “Are you sure you have the appetite for this kind of talk?” Two days later, his lawyer called me up to ask if we would consent to a dismissal.
Libel is a crime against honor. It is the public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice or defect and can be committed only against a person, whether natural or juridical and whether dead or alive.
By the nature of our work or business, many if not most of those sued for libel are media people. The law says that the editor or business manager of a newspaper shall be responsible for any defamatory statement they publish as if they themselves wrote the statement.
That probably explains why newspapers did not print the statement supposedly made by an elected official of a northern town in a press conference the other day that the marriage of his patron’s political rival was “a matrimony conceived in hell and nurtured by evil intentions.”
The statement is libelous. The people whose marriage was described as descended from hell and cultivated by evil intentions are public officials but to say that the accusation is impressed with public interest or is related to official conduct would strain the imagination.
What if I, quoting another, publicly assert that a person should not run for public office because he could be cheated because the incumbent is being supported by another official who has friends of questionable reputation in the Commission on Elections?
There is jurisprudence to the effect that the critic of official conduct does not necessarily guarantee the truth of his factual assertions and that even if a defamatory statement against a public official is false, malice cannot be presumed.
Shorn of all the fancy language, what it simply means is that even if my claim is false, the public official has to prove that I was being malicious when I falsely accused him before he could send me to jail or make me pay twenty pesos.
(fmmalilong@yahoo.com)
For Bisaya stories from Cebu. Click here. (February 10, 2006 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here.
|
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
