THE Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 11 has dismissed two cyberlibel charges against SunStar columnist Pablito "Bobby" Nalzaro over two of his columns in 2018 involving former Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña's son, Miguel.
In his four-page joint order, RTC Branch 11 Presiding Judge Ramon Daomilas Jr. dismissed the two of four cases filed against Nalzaro after the latter filed an urgent motion to quash information with prayer to suspend arraignment and proceedings last September 10, 2019.
The former mayor's son filed four counts of libel against Nalzaro a year ago over two columns which were published in SunStar Cebu on Sept. 5 and Sept. 12, 2018, which he considers "malicious and libelous."
Nalzaro mentioned the younger Osmeña as a business partner of a butane refilling business busted by the Cebu City Police Office in both columns.
In his order, Daomilas favored Nalzaro over Osmeña's assertions, citing the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in Disini et.al vs. Secretary of Justice, which determines the constitutionality of Republic Act 10175, otherwise known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
In the said case, the SC ruled that "online libel is different. There should be no question that if the published material on print, said to be libelous, is again posted online or vice versa, that identical material cannot be the subject of two separate libels. The two offenses, one a violation of Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code and the other a violation of Section 4 (c)(4) of RA 10175 involve essentially the same elements and are in fact one and the same offense." The SC also ruled that charging the offender under both laws would be a "blatant violation of the proscription against double jeopardy."
In his motion filed last September this year, Nalzaro contends that the younger Osmeña's filing of two separate information per article violates his right against double jeopardy.
Osmeña, through his lawyer, countered that there is no double jeopardy in both cases that he filed, citing a 2018 SC ruling in People of the Philippine vs. Alejandro.
He added that Nalzaro failed to state the legal grounds upon the motion to quash is based in as stated in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
But Daomilas favored Nalzaro's contention.
"Clearly then, there can only be one type of libel that the prosecution can file, either Libel under the Revised Penal Code or Cyber Libel under RA 10175. While the Alejandro Case which prosecution cites is more recent, it does not directly rule on the peculiar circumstances attendant to these instant two cases; the Alejandro Case merely ruled on the principle of double jeopardy in general. The Disini Case, on the other hand, is on all fours to these instant two cases because it seeks to prevent what is precisely happening: a person sued twice for publishing an article through print media as violation of the Revised Penal Code and through the worldwide web as violation of RA 10175," Daomilas added.
With the dismissal of the two cyberlibel charges, Nalzaro will still need to contend with the two remaining libel charges filed by Osmeña. (JKV)