"She ruled solely on the basis of law and jurisprudence. "
"She ruled solely on the basis of law and jurisprudence. "
The conviction for cyberlibel of Maria Ressa and Reynaldo Santos, Jr. by Manila RTC Judge Rainelda H. Estacio-Montesa has created such a storm to the point that the judge, a product of St. Scholastica's College, has become the target of vilification by no less than a former school president and perennial whiner, Sister Mary John Mananzan. That Mananzan had to go to the extent of saying "It's good Ressa was also a Scholastican" or words to that effect in an effort to shame Judge Montesa just shows how petty and ridiculous her arguments had become.
Such a childish utterance only demeans her standing and shows beyond any doubt she has not read or maybe will never even bother to read Judge Montesa's decision. Which is what's so disgusting about those who continue to harangue the judge for convicting Ressa and Santos. These people just mouth expletives and non-sequiturs all meant to bully those with whom they disagree. They never bother to state the facts. They insist on their alternative facts. Which is not the same as knowing and telling the truth as in this case. To be honest about it, to the unjaundiced eye, Judge Montesa did right in ruling against the libelous duo. She rigorously established the facts, never even injected any iota of embellishment and ruled solely on the basis of law and jurisprudence.
First, records of the case stipulated that Rappler published in its website that article "CJ Uses SUVs of Controversial Businessman" which the complainant, Wilfredo Keng, considered defamatory and libelous in 2012, at the height of the Aquino administration's campaign to oust then Chief Justice Renato Corona. The article claimed that Keng was a "smuggler, involved in human trafficking and a murderer" all meant to tarnish Corona's standing for being chummy (using a borrowed SUV) with such a controversial person.
Second, Keng and his lawyers demanded that Rappler take out the article. Or, at the very least, correct it. He presented documents to prove that he had never been charged with any of the crimes imputed on him by the writer. Moreover, the records show that Keng's lawyers were also told by a senior Rappler editor, Marites Vitug, that a “clarificatory article” will be written and published to precisely present Keng's side. The same was written as testified by another reporter, Katrina Francisco, in court but was never published contrary to Vitug's advisory. Worse, not only was it re-published, up to now, six years after, it has not been taken down.
Third, that same article, save for the reported deletion of an alleged typographical error, was re-published in 2014 well within the ambit of the CyberCrime Protection Act of 2012 signed by then President Aquino which carried more stringent conditions. For example, under the Revised Penal Code, ordinary libel has a prescriptive period of one year, the new law provides for 12 years. That should demolish the claims of Ressa's collaborators that the case should have been dismissed on prescription.
Fourth, the court found that the four elements of libel, i.e., the allegation of a discreditable act or condition involving another; publication of the charge; identity of the person defamed and existence of malice, were all submitted and proven by the prosecution. In fact, the court advised there was even no need to prove malice in the case of Keng, a private person, as the Supreme Court has already ruled in a previous case that "..the prosecution need not prove the existence of malice where the offended person is a private individual as the law explicitly presumes its existence from the defamatory character of the assailed statement.."
The 37-page decision was so clear and undisputed in its recitation of the facts and the laws juxtaposing both those provided for under the revised Penal Code, the new CyberCrime Law and even the pre-war Act 3326 which the judge used to clarify the controversial “prescription issue.”
To top things off, Ressa and Santos did not even bother to controvert any of the evidence submitted in court by the prosecution. Instead, they went to town crying harassment, persecution and curtailment of press freedom on the part of the Duterte administration. In their unreconstructed finger pointing and blame throwing operation they even failed to remember that the "harsh" CyberCrime Law which they claim had a "chilling effect" on press freedom was enacted during Aquino's time.
Given the uncontroverted facts of the case as rigorously established by Judge Montesa, it was only right that she found Ressa and Santos guilty of cyberlibel. The harangues, the accusations of state persecution and even the unwarranted shaming of Judge Montesa by people who should know better only reinforces the view that indeed she handed out a fair and proper ruling.
Those cries of harassment and other outbursts reminds one of that old lawyerly advice: “If you know the facts, pound on the facts; if you know the law, pound on the law; if you don't know either one, pound on the table.” Ressa and company can pound on the table all they want but that will not diminish one bit Judge Montesa's professionally written ruling. Surely, she is a worthy member of the judiciary.
