The trial of the cyberlibel case filed against Rappler CEO Maria Ressa and a former reporter will proceed after a Manila City regional trial court denied the plea of the accused to dismiss the case for lack of evidence.
This came after the Manila RTC Branch 46 denied Ressa and Reynaldo Santos, Jr.’s demurrer to evidence for lack of merit and set the continuation of trial for December 6 for the presentation of defense evidence.
A demurrer to evidence seeks the dismissal of a charge based on insufficient prosecution evidence. The granting of this pleading means junking a case without the defense presenting its own evidence.
However, Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa held that the evidence presented by the prosecution is “sufficient to sustain” Ressa and Santos’ indictment for cyberlibel.
“It now behooves upon all the accused to adduce evidence to controvert those presented by the prosecution in a full blown trial,” the judge said in its November 15 order.
The Department of Justice indicted Ressa, Santos and Rappler, Inc. arising from an article the news site published in 2012 which cites an “intelligence report” linking businessman Wilfredo Keng, the private complainant, to human trafficking and drug smuggling.
Although the article was published months before the Cybercrime Prevention Act was enacted, the DOJ noted that an alleged republished version of the article in February 2014 is covered by the law.
Rappler has argued that the 2014 update does not amount to a republication because it merely corrected a typographical error.
In its new order, the court said this contention is a matter that the defendants should prove during trial.
The court also ruled that Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code says every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it is true, if it is unjustified.
While there are exceptions, such as in the case of a fair and true report that is made in good faith, the Manila City court ruled that the defense has the burden of proving the article falls under this during trial.
The court also said Ressa and Santos’ participation in the republication of the article is undeniable and that the prosecution was able to prove the corporate liability of Rappler, Inc.
Rappler had argued that the prosecution was unable to prove Keng’s reputation was damaged by the article, but the court did not give weight to it “considering that injury to reputation is not among the essential elements of cyberlibel.”
Aside from the cyberlibel case, Ressa and Rappler also face cases for tax evasion and violation of the Securities Regulation Code, charges they say are acts of harassment by the government.