Skip to content


June 11, 2008

The following was lifted in toto from John Marzan’s blog, Ninez Cacho-Olivarez’s column Frontline on Philippine Daily Tribune (which could not be accessed on Internet since Monday, at least, where I am).  It is about the libel case of which she was lately been convicted.

One can expect Gloria’s mouthpiece, Toting Bunye, to revel in my libel conviction, which is on appeal and the harsh jail sentence, plus fine of P4 thousand, plus actual and moral damages in the amount of some P5 million and P33 thousand.

After all, he and Gloria jumped for joy when F. Arthur Villaraza filed 48 counts of libel that were rejected for consolidation by the state prosecutors and the lawyers of Villaraza. Besides, Bunye himself has close ties with the law firm, since his daughter works for that firm and in fact became the spokesman of the First Gentleman in the early days.

Besides, Bunye really had no call to pontificate about getting the facts right, considering that he not only gave out a completely false report and showed a clear and reckless disregard for the truth when he came up in a press conference on the “Hello Garci” tapes, but even also manufactured evidence! And he dares speak of getting the facts right relating to my case?

But for Chay Hofilena and a Newsbreak magazine writer to say that journalists must get their facts right and to verify the report, obviously referring to my report, perhaps shows just how they judge without getting all the facts right and without having clear grasp of what the law says on libel cases, as it takes the version of the Villaraza version, which was adopted by RTC judge Winlove Dumayas.

Chay Hofilena and Newsbreak, and on record described the Firm as “well-connected” and in an article entitled Firmly in Power: The Villaraza law firm’s tentacles extend to the judiciary and the executive. Critics are up in arms.” If she believes that one should be careful in writing about private persons why did she write about the firm? Obviously because they could not have been private but public figures.

What my article said about Villaraza was nothing compared to that Newsbreak article. In my piece, only once was Villaraza mentioned, and referred to as the President’s personal lawyer, which certainly was no defamatory at all. The other instance where the word Villaraza was mentioned was in the sentence saying: “With all eyes focused on the Carpio-Villaraza-Cruz combine and its hold on the Arroyo administration’s legal arena, as well as its pervasive power and influence in the country’s judiciary.” This statement is libelous, malicious and defamatory?

As for the Newsbreak writer Carmela Fonbuena, she claimed I did not verify the report, saying that the deputy ombudsman in Luzon, Vic Fernandez did not work in the Firm.

In the first place, Newsbreak did not get my side of the story in that report. In the second place, if Fonbuena read the memorandum submitted by my lawyer, Alex Medina of Pecabar, copies of which were given to the media on the day of the conviction, or even got hold of the court transcript of my testimony, she would have found out that I had testified to the fact that I never said Vic Fernandez, the deputy Ombudsman, was a partner of the Villaraza law firm but I did write he was connected with the firm and clarified in court that being connected to the firm meant he was a satellite lawyer. This was not rebutted by the lawyers.

In truth, the firm does have satellite lawyers. Two counsels I had approached earlier to handle my libel case begged off, saying they can’t touch this case, as they also work from time to time with the Firm on certain cases.

It is also on record, something which Dumayas and the junior lawyers of the Firm seem to ignore is the fact that I had testified to all this and that my testimony was not rebutted, as the Firm’s lawyers did not cross-examine me.

On the matter of my not having verified the statements made in my report, why on earth should I bother to verify with Villaraza or his firm when the story was not about him, or the Firm but on the former lawyers of the firm who were now in the Ombudsman’s office and in the executive branch?

This is something that should be gotten right. The information lodged against me does not charge me of libel against the Villaraza and Angcangco law offices. The private complainant in this instance is Villaraza, not the firm. And that article was certainly not about Villaraza and the firm but about their former lawyers and how the AEDC complaint was being handled. Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court were violated by the judge and the lawyers of the complainant.

No matter what Dumayas says in his decision, malice, actual and presumed, was never proved and we will prove that it was never established and proved.

Neal Cruz, this is for you: The high court has defined “actual malice” and malice in fact’ as an act that may be shown by proof of ill-will, hatred or “purpose to injure.” This was never proved by Villaraza.

I could not have been held liable civilly for actual and moral damages because the prosecution failed to adduce any admissible evidence to prove actual or compensatory damages.

The document shown by the prosecution was hearsay, given the fact that the person who prepared it (Villaraza) did not testify in court.

All this was brought out in court, but clearly ignored — for inexplicable reasons by Dumayas.

But that’s not the end of it because the case goes all the way to the appellate court and the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, I got my facts right, and those who bought the Villaraza lawyers spiel, should look at themselves first, before they judge and write.

As a backgrounder, the following, containing some of the sleazy little details of greed and power-tripping in the corridors of power, is from the same blog in another entry:  DID NIÑEZ KNOWINGLY LIE ABOUT THE FIRM’S ROLE IN THE FRAPORT.

And here: the transcript of a wiretapped conversation that talked about certain local personalities like (in the order of appearance) Avelino Cruz, Pancho Villaraza, Secretary Gloria Tan-Climaco, an Attorney Nuval, the Chengs of Piatco, the Executive Secretary, Ricky Razon,  and Joseph Chua (son-in-law of Lucio Tan), someone calling somebody a “crook”, and a $50 M.

This is libel?

I am not a lawyer, thank God, so let’s leave the details that could be proven in court to them lawyers.

But to a layman like me and the rest of us, it is about an airport that would not fucking open, for God’s sake!  We badly need an airport for a thousand urgent reasons but there it lies idle, unmoving, undisturbed,  in early stages of decay—and not a single passenger serviced four years since it was supposed to start operation.  From where we ordinary people sit, it is a story of greed and pride so common in these islands, of a few bastards imposing a naked absurdity, holding hostage an entire nation with the help of highly paid attorneys-at-law.

Ahh, you must remember, we are a nation of laws, as lawyers love to remind us— what can we do?


13 Comments leave one →
  1. June 11, 2008 8:22 am

    “this is libel?”

    heh. either the judge is incredibly stupid. or a an extremely partisan judge.

    i don’t know which is worse.

  2. June 11, 2008 8:58 am

    I posited this argument to a law grad once:
    A case could be decided either way, for or against any of the litigants. The judge decides which side to take then argue from there. From there, only God knows whatever becomes the motivation as there are many that tempt man besides honor.

    He thought a while, then said “yeah”.

    An uncle who was a private lawyer before he became a judge often tell stories of his younger years as defense atty. He would tell: you think you can win a case with good arguments? followed by a loud guffaw with a hint of disdain

    Hey, you covered a lot of grounds there. I have forgotten much of it.

  3. QueenOfHearts permalink
    June 11, 2008 12:55 pm

    It is not rocket science. When Olivares repeatedly and publicly mouthed intentional lies and false accusations, when Olivares published defamatory articles attacking the honor and reputation of private individuals without bothering to verify the facts – she committed libel, plain and simple.

  4. john marzan permalink
    June 11, 2008 4:59 pm

    calling the influential (at that time) pancho villaraza a private citizen is like calling calling karl rove just a regular dude hanging around prez bush.

  5. Bencard permalink
    June 13, 2008 6:47 pm

    you said you’re not a lawyer and i believe you. or else you would probably know that re-publication of a libelous material can give rise to a separate case of libel against the republisher. i believe villaraza et al. have a cause of action against you and j. marzan. check the penal code and jurisprudence on the matter, or consult an attorney.

  6. June 14, 2008 5:10 am

    Bencard, I have only a very very few readers, friends and relatives, plus you who happen to drop by… he does that, my readership will soar so high hahaha… then I’ll have my relatives in high places fix it up ha!

  7. Bencard permalink
    June 14, 2008 1:18 pm

    that would be nice, ricelander, if that would increase your readership. maybe you’d make enough dough to cover the fines, damages, atty. fees and other litigation expenses (lol). btw, by legal definition, “publication” is not limited to widespread circulation. even transmission of libelous matter to a single individual by letter is enough publication.

    i kinda believe villaraza has also some connections “in high places” to counter your’s (lol).

  8. June 14, 2008 2:25 pm

    What do you think? Should I be scared and delete this thing? Send me the bill, man.

    Btw, the last part of the previous is just a joke.

  9. Bencard permalink
    June 14, 2008 5:33 pm

    aw, c’mon, ricelander. don’t take it seriously. i was also joking. i was wrong about my impression on you or j. marzan re-publishing a libelous matter. you didn’t, just olivares’ personal rejoinder to the court decision which is not libelous, i think.

  10. June 14, 2008 11:08 pm

    Was I serious? haha was kidding all the way too. Anyway, thanks for stopping by.

  11. Bencard permalink
    June 15, 2008 12:41 am

    right on, ricelander. thanks for having me.

  12. beancurd permalink
    June 22, 2008 9:49 am

    bencard, you’re a washed up lawyer… go find some case to try.. who knows maybe you’ll even win…


  1. NINEZ’ COMMENTS AFTER HER CONVICTION « The Knight Writers’ Weblog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: