Saturday, June 21, 2008 Publisher appeals libel conviction
DAILY Tribune publisher Ninez Cacho-Olivarez on Friday asked the Makati court to overturn its ruling which found her guilty of libel three weeks ago.
In seeking the reversal of the ruling, Olivarez said Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 59 Judge Winlove Dumayas committed 17 "grave errors" when he convicted and sentenced her to six months to two years imprisonment.
The Makati judge also ordered Olivares to pay P5 million in actual damages and P33,732 in civil damages to the Carpio Villaraza and Cruz (now Villaraza, Cruz, Marcelo and Angcangco) law firm.
"The Honorable Court gravely erred in holding that the accused was charged with the crime of libel. The accused was never charged with the crime having committed libel against the Villaraza and Angangco law offices," said part of the argument raised by Olivarez in her motion for reconsideration.
In its June 2 ruling, Dumayas held that the Angangco Law Offices or the Carpio, Villaraza & Cruz Law Offices is also a private complainant in the case reiterating its previous orders dated October and December 2005.
Olivarez through his lawyer, Alexis Medina of the Ponce Enrile, Reyes and Manalastas Law Firm, said she was convicted "for a crime for which she was not charged" when Mupas ruled that she also committed libel against the "Firm."
Medina said the complainant in the libel case was lawyer Arthur Villaraza, but added that during the course of the trial, the prosecution was allowed to present evidence that she also committed libel against the law firm.
"This is a serious violation of the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the accusation which the Constitution absolutely prohibits," Medina said.
He also said the lower court disregarded the Supreme Court (SC) Administrative Circular 08 series of 2008 directing courts to impose fine instead of imprisonment on libel cases.
"Assuming without granting that the accused is guilty, the Honorable Court gravely erred in imposing the wrong penalty of imprisonment, instead of just fine, pursuant to the Supreme Court's rule on preference," the motion said.
Aside from these, he enumerated other errors committed by the lower court including:
1. Ruling that her client waived her right against the introduction of evidence and conviction of a crime not charged in the information.
2. Holding that the subject article is defamatory against the private complainant, Arthur Villaraza.
3. Holding that the subject article actually damaged the reputation of the private complainant.
4. It considers the testimonies of third person on determining whether the subject article is defamatory.
5. Ruling that the article is presumed malicious under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code.
6. Failing to hold that the article refers to a public figure, and is therefore privileged and not presumed malicious.
7. Failing to hold that the article is a fair commentary on a matter of public interest, and thus privileged and cannot be presumed malicious.
8. It holds that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was motivated by malice.
9. Ignored the evidence that the accused wrote the article without actual malice or malice in fact.
10. Failing to uphold the evidence that the statements of the complainant were true and made with good motives.
11. It convicted the accused in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
12. It erred in failing to uphold the primacy of free speech against attempts to chill the independent press.
13. It erred in holding that the accused is liable for damages to the complainant.
Medina is confident that the court will reverse its ruling, but they are prepared to appeal to higher courts even up to the SC to get an acquittal.
"If the court sustains its judgment, we are ready to appeal and fight this case up to the Supreme Court. On trial in this case is not only Mrs. Olivarez but the right of every citizen to express especially on matters of public concern and interest," he added.
For her part, Olivarez said she is prepared for a long and protracted legal battle though he did not express the same optimism of her lawyer that she will get justice.
"I have always been a fighter. It can take however long as it takes, but we'll still be fighting this," said Olivarez, adding that her conscience is clear.
She also reiterated her stand that the article is "factual and a responsible story", and that there was "no reckless disregard for the truth nor malice."
The lawsuit stemmed from an article entitled "Firm's Partners Ensure Victory of AEDC," written by Olivares in 2003, alleging that then ombudsman Simeon Marcelo chose people supposedly "connected" to the law firm to handle a complaint by its client Asia's Emerging Dragons Corp. (AEDC) against the winning bidder in the build-operate contract for the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (Naia) Terminal III and former secretaries of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC).
AEDC, a consortium led by Filipino-Chinese taipan Lucio Tan, is a losing bidder. But by the time the newspaper article was published, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had already nullified Piatco's build-operate contract over alleged irregularities.
The story pointed to the alleged extortion purportedly based on a CD (compact disc) recording of a conversation between Fraport's officials detailing how Villaraza allegedly tried to extort money from them. Fraport, a German firm, was the foreign partner of Piatco in the project.
Olivarez alleged that Villaraza tried to extort US$70 million for his services and to pay off certain government officials including then presidential adviser Avelino Cruz and then presidential adviser on strategic projects Gloria Tan Climaco.
The complainants said the article is unfounded, and that it maligned the reputation of the law firm and its co-founder Arthur F. Villaraza by portraying them as "mere influence peddlers. (AH/Sunnex)
