CA cites double jeopardy, upholds libel acquittal of ABS-CBN execs
Court of Appeals website
MANILA, Philippines—The Court of Appeals (CA) has denied the petition of GMA executives to overturn the acquittal of ABS-CBN officials and news personnel on libel charges, saying that granting the petition for certiorari would violate the protection of the accused against double jeopardy.
In a 37-page decision on Oct. 28, the appellate court upheld the 2022 order of Catherine Manodon, Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 104 presiding judge, which granted the demurrer to evidence filed by the respondents, thus effectively dismissing the libel case against them.
The petitioners included GMA executives Felipe Gozon, Gilberto Duavit Jr., Marissa Flores, Grace dela Peña Reyes, John Manalastas, and the People of the Philippines.
Named respondents in the case were Judge Manodon, along with ABS-CBN officials and news personnel Erwin Tulfo and Lynda Jumilla, Maria Progena Reyes, Annie Eugenio, Dondi Garcia, Eugenio Lopez III, Luis Alejandro, Jose Olives, Jesus Maderazo, Luisita Cruz-Valdez, Jose Magsaysay Jr. and Alfonso Marquez.
The case stemmed from GMA’s broadcast of ABS-CBN’s exclusive footage of the 2004 homecoming of kidnapped overseas Filipino worker (OFW) Angelo dela Cruz.
Article continues after this advertisementREAD:
Article continues after this advertisementDela Cruz, an OFW who was taken hostage by Iraqi insurgents, returned to the country on July 22, 2004, with ABS-CBN broadcasting live audio-visual coverage of his arrival at Ninoy Aquino International Airport.
Unwelcome remarks
The footage was also shown on Reuters under an existing agreement between the two media companies.
Being a subscriber of Reuters and Cable 黑料社 Network, GMA aired ABS-CBN’s exclusive footage of the arrival in a flash report.
Later, in ABS-CBN’s defunct news program “Insider,” Tulfo and Jumilla called out GMA for what they described as “stealing” and “piracy”—among the statements that “did not sit well” with some GMA executives, prompting them to file libel cases.
In February 2013, warrants of arrest were issued against the respondents who were released after posting bail.
Nine years later, on Feb. 10, 2022, Manodon granted the respondents’ demurrer to evidence, effectively dismissing the case.
While the lower court found Tulfo’s statement libelous, it held that the element of “identification” of the person defamed was not established by the prosecution.
The court also noted that there were no references or descriptive terms made of any of the GMA officers in their personal capacity.
In dismissing the present petition, the appellate court’s Third Division ruled that Manodon did not commit grave abuse of discretion when she found the charge of libel against Tulfo and others unsubstantiated.
“This is not the ‘grave abuse of discretion’ that is an exception to the rule against double jeopardy,” it said in the ruling penned by Associate Justice Eduardo Ramos Jr.
Even assuming that the lower court judge incorrectly appreciated the evidence presented, the appellate court said that “she only committed an error of judgment, and not one of jurisdiction, which could not be rectified by a petition for certiorari because double jeopardy had already set in when public respondent acquitted Tulfo et al.”
Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, a petition for certiorari is a legal remedy for those seeking to review and annul the decisions of lower courts or tribunals when these are alleged to have acted with “grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.”
