THE Court of Appeals (CA) has stood by its 2024 decision clearing anchors and executives of ABS-CBN television network of libel filed by executives of GMA-7 stemming over remarks about the exclusive use of footage of the 2004 homecoming of overseas Filipino worker Angelo Dela Cruz after he was freed by his abductors in Iraq.
In a seven-page resolution dated May 28, 2025, the appellate court’s former Third Division through Associate Justice Eduardo Ramos Jr., denied for lack of merit the motion for reconsideration separately filed by the Office of the Solicitor General representing the People, and petitioners Felipe Gozon, Gilberto Duavit Jr., Marissa Flores, Grace Dela Peña Reyes, and John Oliver Manalastas questioning its decision to grant the demurrer to evidence filed by private respondents Eugenio Lopez III, Erwin Tulfo, Lynda Jumilla, Jesus “Jake” Maderazo, Maria Progena Estonilo Reyes, Annie Eugenio, Dondi Garcia, Luis Alejandro, Jose Ramon Olives, Luisita Cruz-Valdez, Jose “Jing” Magsaysay, Jr., and Alfonso “Pal” Marquez.
Consequently, the charges against them for the crime of libel punishable under Article 253 of the Revised Penal Code were dismissed.
To recall, the petitioners filed libel charges before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court alleging that Tulfo and Jumilla uttered defamatory remarks by claiming that GMA-7 supposedly stole the ABS-CBN video footage of Dela Cruz’ homecoming after he was freed by Iraqi insurgents who abducted him, and aired it on their news program.
The Quezon City RTC Branch 104, under Judge Catherine Manodon, granted the ABS-CBN personnel’s demurrer to evidence on February 2022 and junked the libel case against them.
In junking the case, the RTC said the element of identification was not established because there were no references or descriptive terms that connected the allegedly libelous statements to any of GMA’s officers in their personal capacity.
The GMA executives elevated the case to the CA after their motion for reconsideration was dismissed by the RTC.
In their petition for certiorari, the GMA executives argued that they do not need to be explicitly named for libel to be present, and that it is sufficient if the allusion is apparent through intrinsic reference.
But the CA rejected their arguments and dismissed the petition in a ruling promulgated on October 28, 2024.
The GMA officials appealed the decision on November 25, 2024, while the OSG also submitted a separate motion dated November 21, 2024.
In its latest ruling, the appellate court dismissed the motion filed by the GMA executives.
“After perusing the arguments interposed by all parties, we find and so hold, that there exists no cogent reason for us to modify, much less reverse our decision and deviate from the findings and conclusions therein reached,” the CA said.
It cited the Supreme Court ruling in Austria v. AAA where it ruled that a private complainant has no legal personality to appeal or file a petition for certiorari to question the judgments or orders involving the criminal aspect of a case or the right to prosecute, unless made with the OSG’s conformity.
It also said that the petitioners have no legal personality to file the motion for reconsideration against the grant of the respondents’ demurrer to evidence.
“Their procedural initiative, absent prior conformity of the OSG, was defective. While they could have remedied the lack of standing by timely securing the OSG’s conformity within the period prescribed for filing the motion for reconsideration, this was not done. Instead, the OSG’s conformity was belatedly manifested only upon the filing of the petition for certiorari before this Court — clearly beyond the reglementary period,” the CA explained.
It added that the petition for certiorari was filed late by Gozon and the other petitioners.
The CA also said the present action violates the respondent’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy, or the further prosecution for the same offense.
It also held that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the person defamed as an element of libel, adding that the “the mere fact that a person’s feelings and sensibilities have been offended is not enough to create a cause of action for defamation.”
“In the present controversy, there is no question that Gozon, et al., were not referred to in the purported libelous statements of Tulfo and Jumilla aired on the various shows of ABS-CBN. Only GMA-7 was referred to in those statements. Gozon, et al. could not have been the persons defamed. It is essential to the right of action that the petitioners be at least one of the objects of the libel or slander. Lamentably, Gozon, et al. miserably failed in this regard,’ it said.
‘’With the foregoing disquisition, it is not necessary to pass upon the other arguments raised by the OSG and Gozon, et al., since such matters, if considered, would not alter the outcome of their separate motions,” it added.
Concurring with the resolution are Associate Justices Apolinario Bruselas Jr., and Perpetua Susana Atal-Pano.
