BY GEROME DALIPE IV
ILOILO City – Vice Mayor Jeffrey Ganzon expressed surprise upon hearing about former mayor Jed Patrick Mabilog’s plan to file the libel complaint against him.
He said he could not recall making statements that would have tarnished Mabilog’s reputation.
“But I respect his right to file a case if he feels aggrieved. Magahulat ako sang opisyal nga reklamo antes maghatag sang dugang nga pahayag,” said Ganzon in a statement.
The two have a history of political rivalry, but Ganzon emphasized that he didn’t intend to make defamatory remarks.
“Sa karon, wala sang basehan kag legal nga rason ang mga alegasyon. Buligi ninyo ako nga pangamuyuan si anay Mayor Jed nga magpabilin siya nga kalmado kag malinong ang iya taguipusuon sa tanan nga desisyon nga iya pagahimuon,” said Ganzon.
The legal move of Mabilog coincides with Ganzon seeking his final term in the 2025 midterm elections. Ganzon is running under Team Uswag and will face off against Lady Julie Grace “Love-Love” Baronda, who is Mabilog’s chosen candidate for vice mayor under Team Gugma Sulong.
Mabilog announced he plans to file a libel complaint against Ganzon during a press briefing after the proclamation rally of Team Sulong Gugma on October 8.
While Mabilog did not specify the details of the alleged defamatory statements, he mentioned that Ganzon had previously made remarks about him that he believes damaged his reputation.
“I will file a case against Ganzon. Just watch out for it in a couple of weeks. It will be for libel, and he is already aware of that,” Mabilog told reporters.
Under the law, legal actions for cyber libel should be filed within one year from the discovery by the aggrieved party.
In its recent decision, the High Court’s Third Division abandoned its previous ruling in the case of Tolentino versus People, which previously provided the prescriptive period for cyber libel is 15 years.
This means that the offended party has only one year to file a complaint for cyber libel within one year from the time he discovered the libelous accusations online.
The tribunal issued the latest jurisprudence after it resolved the petition filed by Berteni Causing, who petitioned to SC the denial of his motion to quash his cyber libel charge.
Since cyber libel is not a new crime created by the cybercrime law, the tribunal said the prescriptive period should be based on the Revised Penal Code [RPC] and not Republic Act 3326, which establishes periods of prescription for violations penalized by special acts.
The Penal Code provides for the definition of cyber libel, while Republic Act 10175 simply recognizes the use of a computer as a similar means of publication.
Likewise, the tribunal stressed that paragraph 4, Article 90 of the Penal Code, which states that “the crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year,” should be the basis of the one-year prescriptive period for cyber libel.
Hence, the tribunal pointed out that paragraph 2 of Article 90 of the RPC is no longer the basis or prescriptive period of 15 years.
During the passage of the Penal Code, the tribunal said that the description for libel was two years until a new law was passed and shortened to one year.
In counting the one-year prescriptive, the tribunal stressed the same should be based on discovery by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents./PN
