CA affirms dismissal of GMA’s libel case vs ABS-CBN anchors
MANILA, Philippines — The Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed the dismissal of a libel case filed by GMA executives against ABS-CBN anchors and executives.
The decision stemmed from a libel suit filed by GMA executives against ABS-CBN where the latter accused the former of stealing its exclusive video in 2004 about the return of an overseas Filipino worker who was taken hostage in Iraq.
READ: Libel case vs ABS-CBN execs, talents OK’d
But a Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted a demurrer to evidence by the ABS-CBN, effectively acquitting respondents — Erwin Tulfo, Beth Frondoso, Lynda Jumilla, Maria Progena Estonilo Reyes, Annie Eugenio, Dondi Garcia, Eugenio Lopez III, Luis Alejandro, Jose Ramon Olives, Jake Maderazo, Luisita Cruz-Valdes, Jing Magsaysay Jr. and Pal Marquez — from the case.
The QC RTC ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the element of identification, which is a key element of a libel case, as there were “no references or descriptive terms that connected the statements to any of GMA’s officers in their personal capacity.”
It also stressed the importance of treating GMA as a separate corporate entity, distinct from its directors, officers, and stockholders.
Article continues after this advertisementGMA then tried to reverse the acquittal by elevating it to the CA, but the CA denied the appeal.
Article continues after this advertisementIn a 37-page decision dated October 28, the CA cited the respondents’ right against “double jeopardy,” stating that “when a person is charged with an offense and the case is terminated either by acquittal or conviction or in any other manner without the consent of the accused, the latter cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense.”
Furthermore, the CA upheld the QC RTC’s decision to acquit the respondents from the day, affirming that the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of Libel.
“Assuming that an error was committed by the public respondent, such error was a mere error of judgment and not of jurisdiction. It does not justify the issuance of a writ of certiorari,” it said.
