A Manila court has denied the motion for partial reconsideration filed by Rappler CEO Maria Ressa and former researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr. following their conviction for cyberlibel.

Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 46 Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montessa denied the motion for “lack of merit.”

The camp of Ressa and Santos argued that the complainant, Wilfredo Keng Jr., had the right to file charges against them only until May 2013, a year after the alleged libelous Rappler article came out, because of the one year prescriptive period.

In her 13-page ruling, Montessa noted that special laws, which include cyberlibel, do not provide prescriptive periods.

Montessa cited a Supreme Court resolution (Tolentino v. People of the Philippines)  where the Court ruled that the prescriptive period for cybercrime is up to 15 years.

“...The new penalty, therefore, becomes afflictive, following Section 25 of the RPC (Revised Penal Code). Corollarily, following Article 90 of the RPC, the crime of libel in relation to RA (Republic Act) 10175 now prescribes in fifteen years,” part of the order read.

“Thus the court cannot apply the one year prescriptive period provided under the Revised Penal Code as claimed by the defense,” the lower court said.

Other ‘errors’

The lower court maintained that there was a republication of the Rappler article when it was “republished” in February 19, 2014. The court cited an SC ruling where it stated that “each publication constitutes one offense of libel without qualification as to whether it was modified or not.”

However, the court said, it “sees the need to discuss the allegations of the defense” regarding the substantial change in the article since the accused claimed that they updated the article to correct only a letter in the word “evation.”

On the other hand, on the argument of the accused that the complainant fell within “the definition of a ‘public figure’” thus requiring the prosecution to provide actual malice, Montessa maintained that the cross examination on Keng already proved that he was a private person.

Montessa said, the accused even only raised the “public figure defense for the first time.”

Freedom of Expression

Montessa said the appearance of experienced and impartial attorney to help in the disposition of the issues “has always been a matter of favor or grace, not of right or privilege.” This is because the camp of Ressa and Santos noted that the court “erred in not considering” them.

The court, citing the SC, also maintained that the accused cannot invoke their rights on freedom of expression regarding the case.

“The Supreme Court has already established that libel is not constitutionally protected speech and that the government has an obligation to protect private individuals from defamation.”