The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the libel charge filed by former Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) chief and now Senator Francis Tolentino against ABS-CBN broadcaster Ted Failon in 2017.
Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez, the CA’s Twelfth Division, signed the decision dated July, dismissing the criminal complaint. He also ordered the Cavite Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 18 to cease and desist from the proceedings.
Aside from Ted Failon or Mario Teodoro Etong in real life, the CA also dismissed the case against Gerald Oro, the program story editor and head writer of “Failon Ngayon,” segment producer Abigail Lucas-Rondilla and executive producer Irene Grace Manotok.
In 2016, Tolentino accused Failon of libel over a Failon Ngayon episode “involving the purchase of second-hand motorcycles by the MMDA… with commentary in the broader context of possible fund misuse by the agency.”
Tolentino then filed a second complaint in 2017 after the show rebroadcast the segment in Failon Ngayon’s recap episode on December 31, 2016.
The CA said libel cases involving public officials on matters of public interest, what is punished is the publication of a “calculated” or “reckless falsehood,” or the “known lie.”
For such a case to lead to a conviction, the prosecution must allege and prove actual malice, the CA said.
Also read: Ces Drilon among first laid off after ABS-CBN shutdown
“In libel cases involving public officials in relation to their public duties, truth is a defense. Even harsh, opprobrious, and erroneous opinion regarding public officials and their duties, as long as they are borne of established facts, remain privileged if they are not proven to be attended by actual malice,” the CA said, citing jurisprudence.
“Mere error, inaccuracy, or even falsity alone, honest mistakes, or imperfection in the choice of language are not necessarily actionable. Gross or even extreme negligence is not sufficient to establish actual malice,” it continued.
“Certainly, if we are to remain faithful to the dictum that public office is a public trust, some leeway should be given to the public to express disgust or discontent,” their decision states, citing jurisprudence.
“Even if such expression is sometimes acrid, harsh, critical, vitriolic and accusatory. The interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full and free discussion of public affairs.”