Monday, August 27, 2007 Nalzaro: On Leo’s libel case By Bobby Nalzaro Saksi
THE three-man prosecution panel handling the libel case filed by Gov. Gwen Garcia against ABS-CBN news anchor and The Freeman columnist Leo Lastimosa had recommended dismissing the case.
It argued that the remarks made by the respondent in his column were not libelous. However, reviewing prosecutor Fernando Gubalane, citing the same facts of the panel’s findings, came up with his own conclusion and recommended the filing of the case in court.
His recommendation was subsequently approved by City Prosecutor Nicolas Sellon.
This is the setup at our prosecutor’s office.
The resolution of the investigating fiscal is still subject to review by the reviewing fiscal before it is submitted to the city prosecutor for approval. The reviewing fiscal may or may not concur with the findings of the investigating fiscal and may come up with his own findings and recommendation. The chief of office may or may not also concur with the recommendation of the reviewing fiscal and he can also come up with his own resolution.
But in most cases, the chief of office usually approves the recommendation of the reviewing fiscal.
Usually, a libel case is just assigned to a prosecutor. But Sellon created the panel because the personalities involved are high profile. He also wanted to erase any public suspicion that his office might be influenced by both parties—a powerful and influential politician and a topnotch mediaman.
But I found Gubalane and Sellon’s decision very ironic. Why? Because the recommendation for the dismissal of the case came from the panel composed of Prosecutors Larida, Barcinilla and Lapinid. As the saying goes, “two or three heads are better than one.”
But Sellon explained that it is not the standard operating procedure at the prosecutor’s office that the chief of office is tied up to the panel or prosecutor’s recommendation. Or else the reviewing prosecutor or the city prosecutor has no more work if he or she just keeps on approving the investigating fiscals’ recommendations.
Sellon cited the case of PBMA supreme master Ruben Ecleo Jr., whose parricide case was originally recommended for dismissal by the panel of prosecutors.
But the late city prosecutor Jose Pedrosa reversed the panel’s findings and instead ordered the filing of the case in court.
Well, I hope Gubalane and Sellon carefully studied the facts of the case and were not influenced by the powers that be at the Capitol at the expense of Bay Leo.
The prosecutor’s office only had two grounds in filing a case in court: prima facie evidence and probable cause.
Probable cause is too vague and broad. There are prosecutors who have no personal conviction, and just recommend filing the case in court even without enough bases. “Balaha na ang korte anaa.” This is not to mention the under-the-table deals and bribery practiced by some corrupt prosecution personnel.
These kinds of attitude and practices should be stopped as these are very detrimental to our prosecution service.
Prosecutors are tasked to weigh out and appreciate evidences in the proper perspective, without bias and prejudice. If there are evidences that warrant the filing of a case in court, then file it. But if there is no basis, why make a person’s life miserable. Or is just because the complainant is powerful and influential?
In the case of Mr. Lastimosa, he still has several avenues to take before the case is finally filed in court. I understand his lawyers are filing a motion for reconsideration. And if denied, he can still elevate the matter before the Department of Justice.
I have been lucky that in the 20 plus libel cases filed against me, not one reached the court.
Maybe the prosecutors handling my cases had enough “balls” to clear me of any liability despite some political pressures by complaints.
It is very discouraging and frustrating once we face trial.
Leo and I have been perceived to be competitors because he is with ABS-CBN and I am with GMA 7, which are slugging it out in the ratings game. But this is no longer about competition.
A libel case is a threat to our profession. We should be united against those forces who attempt to suppress press freedom. And I can only sympathize with Bay Leo and with other fellow mediamen who are in the same predicament.
