Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION Branch CXI (111), Pasay City PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Crim. Case No. R-PSY-18-17368-CR ~ versus - For: Libel under Section 4(c)4 of R.A. 10175 EDWARD ANGELO DAYAO y MOJARES a.k.a. COCOY DAYAO, Accused. x x ORDER Before this court is 21 January 2021 accused’s motion for reconsideration of this court's 28 December 2020 Order denying his demurrer to evidence. The prosecution filed two written Comments on 04 February 2021 and on 05 February 2021. Subsequently, accused filed on 15 February 2021 a motion to admit Reply, which, during the hearing on 15 March 2021 was denied in open court. Thereafter, accused on 03 May 2021 filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order denying his motion to admit. This court on 10 May 2021 granted his motion for reconsideration and admitted his reply. &___In his motion to reconsider the Order denying his demurrer to evidence, accused raised the following ground: “WITH UTMOST HUMILITY AND RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT HAS ERRED IN ITS VIEW THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS SUCCEEDED IN PRESENTING SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE ACCUSED Is, BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, THE PERPETRATOR OF THE. CRIME CHARGED, SINCE THE PROSECUTION CLEARLY FAILED TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE ACCUSED IS THE OWNER OR HOLDER OF SILENTNOMOREPH.COM'S GOOGLE AD SENSE PUBLISHER ID: CA-PUB-8283971809912134, MUCH LESS THE AUTHOR OR THE PUBLISHER OF THE SUBJECT ARTICLE.” In support thereof, accused contends that this court erred in relying on the identical Google Ad Sense Publisher ID between silentnomoreph.com and Propinoy.com wherein he is merely listed as the “Managing Director” and “Editor-in-Chief” of the website. By using such premise, despite not having been sufficiently proven beyond reasonable doubt, this court wrongfully concluded he is the publisher of the subject article in silentnomoreph.com. The court's finding that the totality of the circumstantial evidence presented sufficiently proved he is the publisher of the subject article runs counter to the facts presented, law and established jurisprudence. None of the circumstantial pieces of evidence can be logically used to arrive at the conclusion reached by this court that he is the owner of Google AdSense Publisher ID Ca-pub-8283971809912134. If anything at all, what the prosecution could have only succeeded to establish is the fact that he is the “Managing Director” and “Editor-in- Chief” of propinoy.com. Such is not sufficient evidence to establish &that the accused is, beyond reasonable doubt, the owner of Google AdSense Publisher ID linked to it. In its first Comment, the prosecution counters that accused's motion to reconsider is a mere reiteration and rehash of the grounds he raised in his demurrer to evidence. It argues that the identity of silentnomoreph.com’s administrator is even protected by Cloud Flare, which the NBI Digital Forensic Division, using ways and methods, has unmasked. NBI Agent Christopher Paz’s findings were not based on guesswork but on factual matters utilizing established scientific method in tracing authors of websites. Agent Paz tapped CRIME FLARE to look into the Security Socket Layer (SSL) certificate and found out that silentnomoreph.com and pinoyakoblog.com share the same cloud flare SSL Certificate, and as shown, pinoyakoblog.com is registered in the name of the accused. Using Google AdSense Facility, silentnomoreph.com’s source code was found as Google AdSense Publisher ID ca-pub-8283971809912134. Reverse Google AdSense look up thereof shows that propinoy.net shares the same ID and accused was listed therein as the “Managing Director” and “Editor-in- Chief”. In its second Comment, the prosecution maintains and reiterates the findings of this court RULING This court finds no substantial ground to reconsider, much less reverse, the assailed Order.Significantly, as stated in the assailed Order, the issues resolved by this court in the demurrer to evidence were: “ISSUES Whether the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to prove accused Dayao as the author or Publisher of the subject article. If it has, whether the Prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to establish accused is liable of online libel as charged.” As such, this court did not weigh the evidence presented by the Prosecution using proof beyond reasonable doubt as the quantum of Proof. It even discussed preliminarily the office or function of a demurrer to evidence: “The office or function of a demurrer to evidence First and foremost, the remedy of “[D]emurrer to the evidence is “an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue. The party demurring challenges the sufficiencyof the whole evidence to sustain a verdict.” “The court, in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt. x x x Sufficient evidence for purposes of frustrating a demurrer thereto is such evidence in character, weight or amount as will legally justify the judicial or official action demanded according to the circumstances. To be considered sufficient therefore, the evidence must prove: { people v. Jose C. Go, G.R. No. 191015, August 6, 2014; Emphasis supplied.(a) the commission of the crime, and (b) the precise degree of participation therein by the accused." Thus, when the accused files a demurrer, the court must evaluate whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient enough to warrant the conviction of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.’” Thus, “[T]he power of courts to grant demurrer in criminal cases should be exercised with great caution, because not only the rights of the accused - but those of the offended party and the public interest as well - are involved. Once granted, the accused is acquitted and the offended party may be left with no recourse. Thus, in the resolution of demurrers, judges must act with utmost circumspection and must engage in__ intelligent deliberation and reflection, drawing on their experience, the law and jurisprudence, and delicately evaluating the evidence on hand.’® Apropos thereto, this court ruled as follows: “RULING After a judicious examination and evaluation of the evidence presented, this court finds sufficient evidence to prove his participation subject to accused’s evidence to prove otherwise.” Consequently, this court disposed of the demurrer to evidence by passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt. Thus, it disposes, as follows: “Considering that “the presumption of innocence is ‘overcome, the defense bears the burden of evidence to ? Id; Emphasis supplied. 3 People v. Jose C. Go, G.R. No. 191015, August 6, 2014. Ashow reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.” Thus, accused may adduce countervailing evidence. WHEREFORE, the demurrer to evidence is denied. Initial presentation of defense’ evidence is set on 01 2021 30 be Anent the ground to reconsider, and as pointed out by the Prosecution, it is a reiteration of the ground raised in his demurrer to evidence, which this court has passed upon. The assailed Order has extensively discussed each of the pieces of circumstantial evidence upon which the resolution was based. As emphasized, the burden of evidence now lies on the accused to rebut or prove otherwise. WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is denied. Initial presentation of defense’ evidence will proceed as previously scheduled on 21 June 2021 at 8:30 A.M. SO ORDERED. Pasay City, 18 June 2021. ‘Jun Mupas v. People, G.R. No. 172843, February 6, 2008 citing People v. Uy, 392 Phil 73, 782-783 (2000); Emphasis supplied,