Private respondent Timothy Desmond, the Chair and Chief Executive Officer of Subic Bay Marine

Exploratarium, filed a complaint against Dio, a Treasurer and member of the Board of Directors of Subic
Bay Marine Exploratarium, for libel.

Two separate informations were filed and docketed as Criminal Case no. 9108 and 9109.

With regard to the first information in Criminal Case no. 9108, the following facts were stated:

“That on or about July 6, 2002 in Morong , Bataan, Philippines. The accused with malicious intent
bersmich the honor, integrity, and reputation of Timothy Desmond through an electronic message. As
such, the content of the said electronic message is defamatory and constitute an act causing or tending
to dishonor, discredit or contempt against Private respondent Timothy Desmond”.

As for the second information in Criminal Case no. 9109, the following facts were stated:

“That on or about July 13, 2002 in Morong , Bataan, Philippines. The accused with malicious intent
bersmich the honor, integrity, and reputation of Timothy Desmond. Also, the accused willfully,
unlawfully, feloniously send electronic messages to Atty. Winston Ginez, Fatima Paglicawa, Hon. Felicito
Payumo, SBMA Chairman, Terry Nichoson, John Corcoran and Gail Laule. As such, the electronic
messages are considered as defamatory and constitute an act causing or tending to dishonor, discredit
or contempt against Private respondent Timothy Desmond”.

On April 22, 2003, Dio filed a petition to suspend the criminal proceeding but it was denied in the Order
dated February 6, 2004.

Dio moved for reconsideration of the February 6, 2004 Order. She also moved to quash the information
arguing that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. However, the trial court denied both the
Motions of Dio and held that the arraignment shall proceed on July 20, 2005.

Again, Dio moved for partial reconsideration of the July 13, 2004 Order but the same was denied by the
trial court.

On October 11, 2005, Dio filed a Motion for leave of court to file a second motion for reconsideration.
She also filed an Omnibus motion to quash the two information for failure to allege publication and lack
of jurisdiction, and for the second reconsideration with leave of court. But the trial court again denied
the motions of Dio and scheduled the arraignment on March 9, 2006.

Dio, still, filed to move for partial consideration.

This time, the trial court granted Dio’s motion for Partial Reconsideration in its Order dated February 12,
2009.

Wherefore the Motion For Partial Reconsideration is granted and the two information filed against the
accused are thereby quashed and dismissed.