Wednesday, August 01, 2007 Talk back: That ‘stupid monkeys’ accusation By Robert Browning
(The letter is addressed to Pachico A. Seares)
After reading your July 30 column, I was compelled to speak out publicly for the first time.
I am not a lawyer and have never been accused of a crime, but I observed that you never used the word “allegedly.”
Your column did not consider the facts listed in the affidavits attached to the case.
It did not note that I have proclaimed to everyone that I never made such a comment attributed to me.
It did not consider the seven affidavits from witnesses that stated that the mentioned meeting never took place, much less an argument or statement about monkeys.
It did not mention that the claim was made by a business rival and that one witness has already retracted.
Did you note that the fiscal’s office, knowing the facts, could not just pursue the case?
You failed to credit me for the years I lived here in Cebu and the millions of pesos I invested in Cebu..
You failed to give me credit for hours I volunteered at a local employment resource center that teaches Filipinos how to apply for jobs.
Or the time I devoted to local youth sports leagues.
Or the various charity works and social sponsorships my family and I provided.
Should I not get the benefit of the doubt, of proving my case before being adjudged guilty in your column?
I was as offended as anyone by the claim of lawyer Edmerito Gobonsing but you have the right to your opinion.
What seems irresponsible to me is that your opinion of guilt reached thousands of readers while I have to proclaim my innocence one person at a time.
Your column did not consider the hundreds of employees and their families in Cebu whose livelihood will be affected by your suggestion of deportation.
Your rush to judgment could be offensive to the employees that continue to offer their support to me and my family.
It could be misunderstood by friends and families too numerous to count, here in Cebu, in other parts of the Philippines and abroad, who are following this case closely and have offered full support.
Should I even mention our business partners and associates who have gotten to know my family personally?
I do agree that this case has offended a good number of people and not just those with agenda who filed it. Guilt until proven innocent?
Has a man ever made a false claim against another?
Has a business rival ever made a false claim against a competitor?
Has a foreigner ever been accused of crime for reasons other than justice?
Maybe my screams of innocence are falling on deaf ears because I am a foreigner. Is that justice?
I am guilty until proven innocent?
If so, then I will go to great lengths to prove that innocence.
I will spare no expense to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt my innocence.
Successful or not, it’s a fight I must take on because I am innocent.
You are a very good columnist and a decent man.
I trust you will be first to allow a man to defend himself from a claim like this.
I`m also certain you will agree that when a man makes a claim like this upon another, he should prove it.
Not only have I turned down any talk of settlement in this case, I in turn filed a civil suit against those involved.
I never wished to be a public figure, neither does this kind of attention or controversy help me or my family in anyway.
But if going to court to prove my innocence is the only way to prove it, then so be it.
I only hope you passion for this case will be just as strong when the facts come out and the verdict is rendered.
I can also assume that as an honorable man a public apology will only be right after you assumed guilt and published it in a major publication.
Seares replies:
l Please re-read the one-page "disposition" of the city prosecutors on the complaint of Edmerito Gobonsing against you for grave oral defamation.
The ruling doesn't say you didn't make the utterances.
It only says they were not defamatory because they didn't identify the individual, much less Gobonsing.
That you made the utterances stays unrefuted.
Despite your denials and your seven witnesses, the prosecutors didn't say that you didn't make them.
On the contrary, they implied that you made them but the utterances were not directed against a specific person to be offensive and criminal.
l No "rush to judgment" of guilt in the column.
It only took up the fiscals' application of the theory on defamation.
