Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Manila, Branch 46

THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,

-versus- Criminal Case No. R - MNL - 19 -

01141 - CR

REYNALDO SANTOS JR.,

MARIA ANGELITA RESSA,
and RAPPLER, INC.,
Accused.
x-----------------------------------x

MOTION TO QUASH

Accused MARIA RESSA and REYNALDO SANTOS, JR.

(“Ressa” and “Santos”), by counsel, respectfully states:

1. The Information filed by the prosecution reads as follows:

“That on or about 19 February 2014, the above

named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and knowingly re-publish an article entitled “CJ Using
SUVs of Controversial Businessman” quoted hereunder:

“Shady past?

At the time we were tracing the registered owner of

the Chevrolet in early 2011, we got hold of an intelligence
report that detailed Keng’s past. Prepared in 2002, it de-
scribed Keng as a “naturalized Filipino citizen” whose ex-

1
 act birthdate is unknown. In the report, he was also iden-
tified as bearing the alias “Willy,” using a surname also
spelled as “Kheng.”

The report stated that Keng had been under surveil-

lance by the National Security Council for alleged in-
volvement in illegal activities, namely “human trafficking
and drug smuggling.” He is supposedly close to lawmak-
ers and had contacts with the US embassy at the time.

The document also said Keng was involved in a

murder case for which he was “never jailed.” It could be
referring to the death of Manila Councilor Chika Go in
2002 where Keng had been identified as a mastermind.
Go was also the architect of Keng’s Reina Regente
condominium residence in Binondo, Manila.

According to a 2002 Philippine Star report, Keng

was also accused of smuggling fake cigarettes and grant-
ing special investors residence visas to Chinese nationals
for a fee. Keng has denied his involvement in this illegal
transaction, saying it’s easy to get visas to the Philip-
pines.”

In the website of Rappler, Inc. with malicious in-

tent and evil motive of attacking, injuring and impeaching
the reputation of one Wilfredo D. Keng, with residence at
Carriedo Street, Manila, within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, as a businessman, and as a private citi-
zen, thereby exposing him to public hatred, contempt, rid-
icule, discredit and dishonor.”

2. Section 3 (a), Rule 117 of the Rules of Court provides that

when the facts charged in the information do not constitute an of-
fense, the same is a ground for the quashal of an Information.

3. On the very face of the Information, the facts charged do not

constitute an offense of cyber libel as the prosecution failed to men-
tion that the same article was originally published on May 29, 20121.
There has been a misapplication of the multiple publication as such
has no basis in law. Furthermore, Republic Act No. 10175, other-

1
See Annex “A”.

2
 wise known as Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, cannot be ap-
plied retroactively without violating the Constitution and the Re-
vised Penal Code on the rule of prospectivity of laws.

4. Section 3 (g), Rule 117 of the Rules of Court provides that the
extinguishment of the criminal action or liability is a ground for the
quashal of an Information.

5. Even assuming that accused Ressa and Santos committed

cyber libel, the same has been extinguished as Article 90 of the Re-
vised Penal Code states that the crime of libel or other similar means
shall prescribe in one year. The punishable acts, as stated in R.A.
10175, are those unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in
Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed
through a computer system or any other similar means which may
be devised in the future.

The Facts Charged in the Information

Do Not Constitute the Offense of Cyber Libel

6. The prosecution’s basis of multiple republication for the in-

formation is misplaced and has no legal basis here in the jurisdiction of the
Philippines. They claim that there was a republication since the article was
first published in 2012 and was re-published in 2014. Their theory stands
on a decision of a third division of the Supreme Court titled Marcelo
Soriano vs Intermediate Appellate Court.2

7. Such decision of the Supreme Court is not binding in this case

because the Soriano case was ruled by a Third Division of the Supreme
Court not en banc. As such, the Soriano case does not form part of prece-
dent.

8. Soriano vs Intermediate Appellate Court cannot be applied in

this case because the issue in that case was the jurisdiction for the libel case
and not a case of a republished article. The Court in said decision did not
delve into the the counts of libel incurred by the accused. The Court stated
that "multiple publication" rule in the Philippines “applies to every time
the same written matter is communicated such communication is consid-
ered a distinct and separate publication of the libel”.3 However, the Court
applied such definition for ascertaining the jurisdiction of the libel suit.4

2
Soriano v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72383, November 9, 1998.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid.

3
 9. Granting that the multiple republication rule applies in this
case, the correction of a typographical error in the article does not consti-
tute republication. No substantial change was done in the article. Conse-
quently, the only date of publication to be considered is that of May 29,
2012. Given that the Information does not state the original publication as
an offense, it must be quashed.

10. Furthermore, Article III, Section 22 of the 1987 Constitution

prohibits the enactment of ex post facto laws. One type of ex post facto law
has been identified by jurisprudence as that which makes criminal an act
done before the passage of the law, which was innocent when done and
punishes such an act.5 Furthermore, Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code
prohibits the retroactive application of a penal law that is prejudicial to the
accused.

11. The article written by Santos was originally published on May

29, 2012 and Republic Act No. 10175, punishing libel through a computer
system or any other similar means6, was enacted on September 12, 2012.
The law subsequently took effect on October 3, 2012 -- fifteen days after
it was published in The Philippine Star.

12. By charging Ressa and Santos for violating Republic Act No.
10175, their act of publishing the article is made criminal by a law that was
enacted after the said act was committed. This is a clear violation on the
Constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws as well as the prohibition
on retroactive application of penal laws as it would clearly prejudice the
accused.

13. Furthermore, if the correction of the article on February 19,

2014 would constitute as republication, Republic Act No. 10175 would
still not apply as the Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order
which barred any action that could have been taken under the law. In the
case of Disini, Jr. v. Secretary of Justice,7 the TRO was issued on October
9, 2012 barring the enforcement of Republic Act No. 10175. The TRO was
only lifted on April 22, 2014 when the Motions for Reconsideration were
resolved with finality. As such, from October 9, 2012 to April 22, 2014,
Republic Act No. 10175 had no legal and actual effect.

14. Considering the corrected article on February 19, 2014 as the

basis for the criminal liability for cyber libel, the application of Republic

5
Benedicto v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125359, September 4, 2001.
6
Rep. Act No. 10175 (2012), sec. 4(c)(4).
7
Disini v. Secretary of Justice, 727 Phil. 28 (2014).

4
Act No. 10175 would be unconstitutional. Through the Disini case, the ef-
fectivity of Republic Act No. 10175 was suspended. Consequently, the
court must strike down the Information which grounds its charge upon an
ex post facto application of the law as it is bound to obey the Constitution,
the laws and the decisions of the Supreme Court.

The criminal action or

liability was extinguished

15. Republic Act No. 10175 does not establish a new offense of
cyber libel as manifestly stated in section 4(c)(4):

(4) Libel. - The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel

as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, committed through a computer
system or any other similar means which may be
devised in the future.

16. As expressly stated in RA 10175, the law only adds an addi-

tional means to commit libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal
Code, not a new felony.

17. Cyber libel, being the same felony as defined in Article 355
of the Revised Penal Code but only committed in a different manner, is
thus governed by the prescriptive period of one year, as defined in Article
90 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 91 of the same code states that the
period of prescription shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or
information.

18. Having no basis for the republication of the article for the rea-
sons above-mentioned, the only relevant publication in this case is the one
originally posted on May 29, 2012. The complaint was instituted only in
2014 and the instant information was filed only in 2019. It is apparent that
the one year prescriptive period has lapsed, thus affording the court no ju-
dicial action other than to quash.

19. The charge was based on the re-published article of Rappler

in 2014 and not 2012, making it appear that the complaint was for a later
offense for which the prescriptive period should be computed. However,
penal laws must be liberally construed in favor of the accused.

20. To give credence to the argument that the date of the republi-
cation in 2014 should be the basis from which the period should prescribe
will make cyber libel an ex post facto law i.e., that makes an act, done

5
before the passage of the law, and which was innocent when done, crimi-
nal, and punishes such act. Thus, the earliest publication in 2012 must in-
stead be considered to give it the correct prescriptive period of one year.
Otherwise, the governing law on cyber libel would be in violation of Con-
stitution as well as the Revised Penal Code.

21. Simply, the foregoing unrefuted and conclusive facts on rec-

ord completely destroy the prima facie truth accorded to the Information
that accused Ressa and Santos supposedly committed the crime. Thus, ap-
plying the laws, supra, the instant Information should be quashed.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Information be

QUASHED and the instant case DISMISSED.

Other reliefs, just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Taguig City, 13 March 2019

By:

6
 NOTICE/COPY FURNISHED (By Registered Mail)

THE HON. CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court of the City of Manila
Branch 46

EDWIN S. DAYOG
Senior Assistant State Prosecutor
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NBI Building, Taft Avenue
Ermita, Manila

VILLA JUDAN & CRUZ ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW

Counsel for Wilfredo D. Keng
Penthouse, BPI-Philam Life Alabang Building,
Alabang-Zapote Road, corner Acacia Avenue,
Madrigal Business Park
Ayala, Alabang, Muntinlupa

DISINI & DISINI LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Maria Angelita Ressa, Glenda M. Gloria
and Reynaldo Santos
320 Philippine Social Science Center
Commonwealth Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City

7
GORRICETA AFRICA CAUTION & SAAVEDRA
Counsel for Nico Jose Nolledo, Felicia Huang Atienza
And Manuel I. Ayala
15F & 4F Strata 200, F. Ortigas Jr. Road
Ortigas Center, Pasig City

POBLADOR BAUTISTA & REYES

5th Floor, SEDCOOI Building
120 Rada cor. Legaspi Street
Legaspi Village, Makati City

Retired Associate Justice Hector L. Hofileña

Counsel for Jose Maria Hofileña
Suite 208, Ermita Center Building
1350 Roxas Blvd., Ermita, Manila

James C. Bitanga
5th Floor, Eurovilla 4 Building
853 Arnaiz Avenue, Makati City

Gentlemen:

Please take notice that the undersigned will submit the foregoing
Motion for the consideration and resolution of the Honorable Court on 25
March 2019 at 8:30 AM.

JANINE S. ISMAEL

8
 WRITTEN EXPLANATION FOR
SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

Please be informed that the undersigned counsel served a copy of the fore-
going Motion upon the above-named counsel/parties by registered mail, as
evidenced by the attached Affidavit of Service by Registered Mail, due to
the shortage of available manpower to effect personal delivery.

JANINE S. ISMAEL

9
 VERIFICATION

I, MARIA ANGELITA RESSA, Filipino, of legal age, with ad-

dress at Block 48 Lot 7, Lanao del Norte Street, Maharlika Village, Taguig
City after being duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and
state that:

1. I am an accused in the above-captioned case and

I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Mo-
tion;

2. I have read and understood the contents of the

foregoing Motion, and attest that the allegations therein are
true and correct of my own personal knowledge and/or based
on authentic records;

IN WITNESS HEREOF, I hereby affix my signature this __ of

March 2019 in the City of _______.

MARIA ANGELITA RESSA

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on the date and at the

place first written above, affiant exhibiting to me her government issued
ID bearing her signature and photograph, _____________, issued by
___________ and valid until _____________.

Doc. No. ;
Page No. ;
Book No. ;
Series of 2019.

10
 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, JOSE MARIE. ISTAN, of legal age, Filipino, single and a resident

of 619 P. Burgos Street, Brgy. Poblacion, Makati City, after having been
duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state:

1. That I am employed as a messenger of Atty. Justinne Jose Ma. Atienza

with office address at 5th Floor DLSU College of Law Rufino Campus,
Taguig City;

2. That on March 15, 2019, I served a copy of the following pleading/paper

by registered mail in accordance with Sec. 10 of Rule 13 of the Rules of
Court:

MOTION TO QUASH

in Criminal Case No. R-MNL-19-01141-CR entitled "People v Santos,

Jr., et al.” by depositing a copy in the post office in a sealed envelope,
plainly addressed to the defendant's lawyer at his office with postage fully
paid, as evidenced by Registry Receipt No. 0427 attached and with instruc-
tions to the post master to return the mail to sender after ten (10) days if
undelivered.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 15th

day of March 2019 in Manila City, Metro Manila, Philippines.

JOSE MARIE. ISTAN

Affiant
Voter's ID No. 8888

SUBCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this __ day of March

2019 in Manila City, Metro Manila, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me
his valid proof of identification.

Doc. No. _____;

Page No. _____;

11
Book No. _____;
Series of 2019.

12
ANNEX “A”

13
‘

14
15