[] Still no law punishing fake news. Complainants rely on Revised Penal Code and Anti-Cybercrime Law.
[] Complaint vs. news reporter based on Facebook post, not on newspaper report.
[] A boon to journalists and other subjects of complaint: the prosecutor uses “threshold of certainty of conviction," no longer just “probable cause.”
• 2 COPS’ COMPLAINT. Local media reported Thursday, August 28, 2025, the Cebu City Prosecutor’s Office dismissed a complaint for cyber-libel against Freeman reporter Nicolas Jon Malaga over his Facebook post saying there were no police seen during the school opening on June 16.
The prosecutors, in a resolution dated August 12, said the complaints of a police sergeant and a police corporal didn’t show there was cyber libel in Malaga’s FB post, which published photos taken at the Cebu City Central School in Sambag 1. The photo caption said there were no police visible at the site despite earlier assurance of then PNP chief General Nicolas Torre of law enforcers’ presence on that school opening day, June 16, 2025.
• CHARGE AGAINST ‘BAMBI.’ A week earlier, on August 21, 2025, the news broke that the Regional Trial Court in Cebu City dismissed on August 14 the charge of unlawful use of publication and unlawful utterances in connection with cyber-libel against artist and writer Maria Victoria “Bambi” Beltran because it had not been proved.
Beltran’s 2020 post during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic -- saying that with 9,000 new cases in Zapatera in one day, “we are now the epicenter in the whole solar system -- was a satire, the court ruling dated August 14 said, “clearly rhetorical” and not a “literal factual claim.”
Besides, RTC Judge Merlo Bagano said, prior to Beltran’s post, the same news, minus the “satirical comment,” was published in multiple local news outlets.
FIRST, WHO DECIDED TO FILE CASES? The cyber-libel complaint against news reporter Malaga was filed by the two police officers more on the prodding of higher officers than on their own initiative.
How could PSSG Edgar Gabule Jr. and PCCPL Jasper Cabiling Anonuevo be personally shamed by the FB post of Malaga? They weren’t named or alluded to in the published material. The two policemen in fact alleged the post caused “so much damage” to the police station and “image of the PNP as a whole,” thus disclosing who was hurt, not the complainants but the high-ranked police official embarrassed before the new PNP chief.
As to the case against Beltran, then mayor Edgardo Labella shared Beltran’s “offensive” post with a warning she’d be arrested for spreading “fake news.” On the same day Beltran was arrested allegedly without warrant and detained for three days.
It was apparent who was interested to sanction Beltran. That interest continued even after three charges filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities were dismissed on August 17 and September 15, 2020 for lack of jurisdiction and lack of evidence. Undeterred by the dismissals, a complaint for cyber-libel was re-filed, this time with the Regional Trial Court. The RTC threw that out too last August 21.
SIGNS THAT CASES WERE WEAK. The first instruction the recently-decided two cases must give complainants in the public sector -- such as the mayor in the Bambi Beltran case and the high police official in the Jon Malaga case -- is to see to it that the case is strong.
The case against Malaga on its face bore signs of weakness: the FB post didn’t slander or malign. No person or group was identified.
In the case against Beltran, it wasn’t just signs. The MTCC not only cited lack of jurisdiction, it also cited lack of evidence. They were explicit and express findings, of a court no less.
WAS THE NEWS FAKE? WAS IT SLANDER? A question is raised in the two cases and each answered in the negative.
In the RTC order of dismissal, after a demurrer to evidence, the court cited Beltran lawyer Amando Virgil Ligutan’s questioning of the police corporal about the banner headlines in the newspaper and the commentaries of radio commentators. All about an entire sitio, Zapatera, being infected with Covid, the same dire news that Beltran posted.
It was not false news, as it was based on a Department of Health report, and it was reported and talked about by most of the local media.
NO LAW AGAINST FAKE NEWS. Complainants relied on Article 154 of the Revised Penal Code, in connection with the Anti-Cybercrime Law: “unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances.” That law requires that the false news “may endanger the public order or cause damage to the interest or credit of the the state.” The news must not just be false, it must “endanger” or “cause damage.” Often what’s actually endangered or damaged is the public official’s image; the authority threatened is that of the public official suing or instigating the lawsuit.
There’s yet no law on fake news. Attempts in Congress have been the difficulty of punishing fake news per se, without running afoul with the precept of free press and free speech.
The Cebu Citizens-Press Council (CCPC) for one has cautioned against a law that would punish honest mistakes committed in course of gathering, writing and editing the news.
“REASONABLE CERTAINTY OF CONVICTION.” Regarding the complaint filed with the prosecutor’s office -- the two police officers’ gripe against the news reporter -- there was a standard that wasn’t met.
Citing DOJ circulars (#16 and #20), the prosecutor’s ruling said complaints must now meet the threshold of “reasonable certainty of conviction,” which requires the evidence to be “strong enough to likely result in conviction beyond reasonable doubt.”
In effect, the prosecutor now goes beyond the “probable cause” standard, which he or she used to base the filing of the case in court despite some doubt about conviction, leaving it to the court to assess the evidence.
That new rule will help journalists and other respondents from being indicted on mere allegation of the complainant who intends to harass and oppress.