Mga testimonya ng witnesses ni Sam at Piolo walang bigat

20. The allegations by the complainants that they were some place else is in the nature of a general denial and alibi which is a weak evidence and insufficient to overcome my positive identification. Where alibi is established only by the complainants’ associates, such defense deserves scant consideration, especially so in the face of my affirmative testimony. I was informed that the Supreme Court has previously held that the defense of alibi can prosper only if it is shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime or within its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission (People vs. De Roxas, 241 SCRA 369 (1995). In this case, there is no showing that it was physically impossible for either Sam or Piolo to be at Sofitel that day.

21. The testimony of Jovy Peregrino carries no weight. First, her “expertise” to make a study of my article has not been sufficiently proven. Secondly, she is incompetent to testify and to give her opinion as to my “interpretasyon hingil sa isang kaganapan” because she could not possibly claim to know exactly what my intentions, thoughts or feelings were when I wrote the article. Thirdly, she never discussed her methodology in supposedly eliciting comments from her students. She never even stated who prompted her to conduct such a discussion in class or what her purposes were for doing so. Was she paid to do so? We do not know. Even granting that she was not instigated by the complainants, she never explained how the complainants and their counsels came to know of this supposed discussion with her students. She never bared how she formulated her questions. For all we know, questions my have been formulated in a leading manner designed to elicit a desired result.

22. The biggest weakness in Jovy Peregrino’s testimony however is the fact that the “experiment” was not conducted on neutral participants who would be reading the article for the first time. All participants, the conductor Jovy Peregrino included, were already thoroughly preconditioned by the repeated airing of Piolo and Sam’s hypersensitive and biased interpretation of what I wrote. As I said in my Counter-Affidavit, it was the complainants’ own acts of publicly presenting their one-sided, constricted and hypersensitive assessment of my article which fuelled doubts in the public’s perception of their sexuality, and influenced the minds of the public to suppose that I intended to dishonor, discredit or besmirch their reputation in any way. As admitted by Jovy Peregrino in her Affidavit, the discussion was conducted only after “Nagkaroon ng iba’t ibang pahayag ng mga nasasangkot sa isyu, gayundin ang iba pang manunulat at mamamahayag sa radio hinggil sa tunay na ipinababatid ng manunulat ng nasabing artikulo at sa nakapaloob na intension ng manunulat sa pagsulat nito”. The results of the supposed discussion were not only inconclusive but also tainted for having been derived from minds already conditioned against me.

23. I also noticed that Jovy Peregrino’s testimonies as regards the interpretation or impression of her students to the article could not be admitted against me because her declarations are hearsay evidence, not allowed in our laws.

24. A reading for Jovy Peregrino’s Affidavit also showed that the supposedly libelous, malicious, or damaging nature of my article was derived primarily from the heading/title of the article which I have repeated over and over again, was not my doing. I never chose the words in the heading because I was not its author. I only wrote the text. In the text, I said coffee shop by the poolside where the breath taking sunset could be seen because that is really descriptive of the place. My descriptions were really just what it were. Anyone could go there and verify my description. Aren’t sunsets really breath-taking?

25. Jovy Peregrino also faulted me for using “mhin” to describe Piolo and Sam but if she had only been reading tabloid showbiz articles, “mhin” had been widely used to simply mean “man” or “men”, nothing more, nothing less. My usage of the word “tulala” also signifies nothing malicious. As complainants’ witness even stated, it also means’ “sobrang pagkagulat, hindi inaasahan, sobrang pagkabigla”. I do not deny that I was surprised and not expecting to see them there.

26. The Affidavits of Luisa Rodriguez and Mika Valerie De Guzman were obviously prepared by the complainants’ counsel. It carries no weight as any Piolo or Sam fan would have gladly agreed to pretend to be a “disgusted” witness if told that doing so would aid their idol’s case against me. The allegations therein are also misleading and lacking in credibility because it is made to appear that it was only because of my article they had an epiphany that their idols were or could be gay. If they are really ardent followers of showbiz news, they must have known that numerous writers had been categorically attesting to their idol’s homosexuality. I never did any of that. I merely said that their idol were “nagbubulungan”. Further, if they were truly fans of Sam and Piolo, would they easily take my word over theirs?

27. As I said in my Counter-Affidavit, actual malice is not present in this case. I never made the article knowing that my report was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. I saw them with my own eyes. My report was based on my own perception, obviously leading any reasonable and prudent person to believe that the same is true.

28. I have no reason to fabricate a story. I carry no grudge against any of the complainants. They would not also say that I created a story for the sake of having a scoop. With all the previous news proliferating about their gender preferences, it is old news already. It is not a scoop anymore.

29. I had been consistent in what I saw. Annexes I to M to Piolo’s Affidavit prove that I was steadfast in my claims even in the face of threats of lawsuits. If I just made up the story, I should have backed down knowing that I would be going against the complainants who are backed up by a network giant. Immediately after seeing what I saw also, I immediately called Gorgy Rula and narrated what I saw, I was told that this is significant because under Section 42, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the statements I made to Gorgy Rula after unexpectedly seeing Sam and Piolo in Sofitel are admissible as part of res gestae.

30. A publication is considered qualified privileged so long as it is fair and true report of what transpired and is published without malice. My article is simply a narration of what I saw. A fair comment is considered a privileged communication. People who hold themselves out to the public eye may be discussed freely with reasonable bounds. This is particularly true when the fair comment is based on circumstances personally perceived by the writer.

31. Privileged communication in defamation cases developed because public policy, the welfare of the society and the orderly administration of justice have demanded protection for public opinion. Therefore, they should not be subjected to microscopic examination to discover grounds of malice and falsehood.

32. The publication being a bonafide communication on matters of public and social concern, and made without malice, I am entitled to the protection of the rule on privileged matters under Article  354 of the Revised Penal Code. The word “gay” and “homosexual activities” are their own making and the innuendos were precipitated by the prevailing rumors  of their true characters.

33. From the foregoing, it is clear that the allegations in the Complaint do not constitute any act or offense punishable under the law, the dismissal of the Complaint for lack of basis and failure to establish a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed is warranted.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 7th day of February 2008 at the City of Manila.

LOLIT A. SOLIS

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 20th day of February at the City of Manila.