THE Court of Appeals (CA) junked the petition of GMA Network Inc.’s executives seeking to reverse the acquittal of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp.’s anchors and executives in a libel case filed in 2004, involving the use of exclusive video footage of a kidnapped overseas Filipino worker.
The appellate court’s Third Division ruled that if it granted the petition for review filed by Felipe L. Gozon and others, it would violate the right of the respondent, ABS-CBN, against double jeopardy.
“By the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy, it is understood that when a person is charged with an offense and the case is terminated either by acquittal or conviction or in any other manner without the consent of the accused, the latter cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense,” Justice Eduardo S. Ramos, Jr. penned in a 36-page decision.
The case stemmed from the homecoming of a kidnapped OFW by Iraqi rebels in July 2004, where ABS-CBN broadcasted a live coverage of his arrival. The Lopez-owned firm’s exclusive video footage was also shown on Reuters Television Service under an existing agreement.
GMA’s subscription to Reuters allowed it access to live and taped video feeds, which it can broadcast in its news programs, thereby paving the way for the airing of ABS-CBN’s exclusive footage.
Through one of its now-defunct news programs, former ABS-CBN news anchor Erwin T. Tulfo alleged that GMA stole ABS-CBN’s video. Lynda Jumilla, another ABS-CBN news anchor, echoed the sentiment.
The tribunal also said the plea suffered from a procedural defect because it was without conformity of the public prosecutor and filed beyond the allowed period.
It also junked the petition on the substantial aspect, ruling the lower court did not commit a grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the libel case and acquitted the ABS-CBN respondents.
GMA executives then filed two libel cases before a Quezon City court.
The Quezon City court granted the ABS-CBN personnels’ demurrer to evidence in February 2022, dismissing the libel case against them
In junking the libel case, Judge Catherine P. Manodon said the element of identification was not established because there were no references or descriptive terms that connected the statements to any of GMA’s heads in their personal capacity.
Aggrieved, GMA heads elevated the case to the appellate court. They argued that they need not be explicitly named for libel to be present, and it is enough if the allusion is apparent through intrinsic reference.
The CA upheld the lower court’s ruling, saying that a corporation has a legal personality separate and distinct from the people comprising it.
It added that Mr. Gozon and fellow plaintiffs were not referred to in the alleged libelous statements of the two anchors. Only the company was referred to in their statements.
“Even if the individual thinks that he has been injured by the libel of the corporation, he cannot recover unless he can show that he himself thereby was also libeled,” it said. — Chloe Mari A. Hufana
