CEBU, Philippines — For lack of probable cause, the libel complaint filed against Barangay Mabolo Captain Prisca Niña Mabatid of Mabolo, Cebu City and the members of the media was dismissed.
City Prosecutor Liceria Lofranco-Rabillas found no ground that would hold Mabatid, owner of Pinoy Care Visa Center; Sunstar Cebu Editor-in-Chief Isolde Amante; The FREEMAN Editor-in-Chief Archie Modequillo and writer Kristine Bernadette Porpayas, Superbalita Editor-in-Chief Michelle So and two unidentified john does liable.
“After a thorough evaluation of the evidence presented by the parties, this office finds no sufficient evidence to hold that the crime of libel has been committed by the respondents,” read the resolution.
Spouses Ruben David and Eva delos Santos sued Mabatid for allegedly “accusing them in public of swindling or defrauding her in buying a townhouse” from them, and the media for publishing the alleged unverified and unsubstantiated accusations.
The couple alleged that on December 19, 2017, Mabatid called for a live interview where several media were present and published the purported libelous articles.
They claimed they were accused of estafa.
“Complainants claim that Mabatid maliciously accuses them in public that they allegedly defrauded her by not letting her know of the existing amortization, and that either they do not have the right to sell or that they sold the townhouse to another person,” the document reads.
Mabatid, in her counter-affidavit, denied the allegations filed against her.
She claimed she never initiated the interview.
It so happened that the media were at the National Bureau Investigation (NBI)-7 at that time scouting for news.
On December 17, Mabatid said she went to the NBI to file a complaint of estafa against the couple.
Rabillas, in her six-page decision, found no malice in the statements made by Mabatid which were published in the newspapers.
Mabatid’s statements were the same statements the latter made in her judicial affidavit she filed before the NBI.
“The element of malice is wanting in the instant case. It is any person’s right to seek redress for what she believes she has a right to claim. It is the right of any party to demand from another party the performance of his obligation, otherwise, the agreement entered into will fail,” read the resolution.
“Malice in law is not necessarily inconsistent with an honest or even laudable purpose. For that reason, even if the utterances or publication is injurious, the presumption of malice disappears upon proof of good intention and justifiable motive, as in the instant case,” the decision further read.— GAN (FREEMAN)