[] There must be a third person, other than the complainant and Ligas, who read the defamatory material. How about Ligas’ followers, a claimed 8,700 people?
[] One, even more, must have read the posts. Apparently though, that cannot be presumed or assumed. It has to be “alleged and substantiated.” Or so the Cebu provincial prosecutors believe.
[] Absence of one of four elements of the crime is enough to knock down the complaints.
[] Not resolved in Cebu City prosecutor’s resolution: Issue of press freedom and related questions raised in Ligas’ defense, such as fairness of commentary on a matter of public interest, accountability of public officials, privileged communication, and absence of malice.
THE Cebu Provincial Prosecutor’s Office has dismissed five cyber-libel complaints filed by a construction company against broadcaster Edward Ligas.
Ligas had made five separate posts from August 14 to 23, 2025, in his Facebook account, accusing Jerome G. Awit, president of ZLREJ Trading and Construction Corp., of “engaging in corrupt and unlawful activities” in complying with a contract for a riprap project in Barangay Maguikay, Mandaue City. Awit sued for the company ZLREJ.
The resolution clearing Ligas was signed by Asstistant Provincial Prosecutor Aldwin Z. Flores on November 15, 2025, and later approved by Provincial Prosecutor Ludivico Vastal Guaran. It was publicized Thursday, January15, 2026.
The ruling: There was no “prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction” to indict the broadcaster.
WHAT KIND OF PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE? There’s a not-so-familiar condition attached to the evidence required, under Department of Justice new rules issued July 16, 2024.
The evidence must not only be (a) prima facie—“sufficient to prove” the crime “at first sight” or “on its face”—but must also be (b) “reasonably certain” to convict the would-be accused.
No such evidence against Ligas, the prosecutors decided. Say that again: “prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction.” The evidence found doesn’t have a “reasonably” sure chance of proving the crime in court.
WHY LIGAS CASE MUST INTEREST US. Corruption involving flood control funds is top subject in the national debate and anywhere else the public issues are talked about.
The public understandably is interested to know how far can public discussion go, by news media opinion or social media commentary, in criticizing “thieves” of public funds: the massive loss of taxpayers’ money in an apparently systematic looting by lawmakers, DPWH personnel and others responsible for the national budget.
Editors, reporters and opinion makers in the news media are fascinated how the Ligas commentary would be seen under the lens of the law on cyber libel, at the starting point of the legal process: the prosecutor’s office.
The investigating prosecutor skipped the elements of libel except one. There was no publication, he said, so no libel. Absence of a single element of the crime means there’s no crime. His finding was approved by his chief prosecutor and others who must have reviewed it.
HOW NO-PUBLICATION THEORY GOES. The defamatory material, the prosecutors’ ruling said, “must be known to someone other than the person to whom it has been written.” “There is publication if the material is communicated to a third person.”
The prosecutors believe there was no such communication. The records, the resolution said, show that the complainant Awit “failed to divulge that any person other than himself had read the libelous remarks posted on Facebook.”
Awit, according to the ruling, alleged in the complaint that Ligas is “a radio blocktimer” with a Facebook account with about 8,700 followers, where he “actively posted his content.”
However, the ruling said, Awit “did not disclose (in his complaint) whether any of his followers, or other individuals, had viewed, liked, shared or commented on” the “libelous” posts.
Where is that third person? “Without such allegation and evidence, the supposed publication remains unsubstantiated,” the prosecutors said.
IT WOULD SEEM ODD, IF NOT LUDICROUS, that the libel complaint was thrown out because it failed to allege and prove publication, a fact that is supposed to be a “given” in public knowledge about how social media works.
CORE QUESTIONS LIKE WHETHER THE POSTS WERE WRONGFUL NOT TOUCHED by the prosecutors’ ruling, which focused solely on publication as an element of libel and the allegation of publication being absent in the complaints that Awit filed.
Yet defamation is very much the issue in a libel case, cyber or plain.
The investigating prosecutor in fact cited Ligas’s five posts, repeating the text of each comment in full and citing the complainant Awit’s claim of defamation.
-- On the subject on “Usik-usik sa pondo sa flood control” (Aug. 14, 2025): Awit alleged it “directly imputed… the public funds were misused or wasted.”
-- On the collapse of the riprap, “Maayo kaha magkanunay?”, the flooding “while the kongresista and the contractor were abroad shopping” (August15, 2025): Awit said it was “factually inaccurate,” portraying his company as “corrupt and irresponsible.”
-- On the size of the P3.8 billion district budget for flood control while the floods worsened—“Were the congresswoman and her favorite contractor able to sleep?” (August 16, 2025): Defamatory, said Awit, “insinuating corruption,” “suggesting collusion and favoritism,” “express and categorical imputation of theft…”
And so forth: the fourth post (August 17, 2025) related to Ligas’s challenge to the congresswoman, and the fifth (Aug. 23, 2025) about her being exposed by nature (“naboking”).
To the five Ligas posts, Awit alleged that Ligas’s intention was “not to inform the public but to provoke outrage and destroy their name in utter disregard for the truth.”
LIGAS DEFENSES SKIPPED TOO. Defenses mounted by Ligas in his counter-affidavit were also not tackled.
The broadcaster claimed press freedom, the “right and duty” to comment on a matter of public interest, and the other usual places of refuge of journalists sued for libel, such as privileged communication, truth as foil to libel, and fair commentary.
Was it a ruling based on a technicality? Not quite. After all, it took up one of the basic elements of libel. Yet the bigger questions, as far as they affect assessment of prima facie evidence, were totally not considered.