PEP.ph responds to Liza Diño's cyberlibel complaint | ABS-CBN

Welcome, Kapamilya! We use cookies to improve your browsing experience. Continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of cookies. Tell me more!
PEP.ph responds to Liza Diño's cyberlibel complaint
PEP.ph responds to Liza Diño's cyberlibel complaint
ABS-CBN News
Published Jul 26, 2024 11:21 PM PHT

MANILA --- Editor-in-Chief Jo-Ann Maglipon and Deputy Managing Editor Rachelle Siazon of the entertainment website Philippine Entertainment Portal (PEP.ph) submitted their joint counter-affidavit at the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office on Friday, July 26.
MANILA --- Editor-in-Chief Jo-Ann Maglipon and Deputy Managing Editor Rachelle Siazon of the entertainment website Philippine Entertainment Portal (PEP.ph) submitted their joint counter-affidavit at the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office on Friday, July 26.
It was their response to actress and former Film Development Council of the Philippines head Liza Dino-Seguerra, who filed a cyberlibel case against the entertainment website and other personalities for an alleged "attempt to tarnish her reputation by manipulating public opinion."
It was their response to actress and former Film Development Council of the Philippines head Liza Dino-Seguerra, who filed a cyberlibel case against the entertainment website and other personalities for an alleged "attempt to tarnish her reputation by manipulating public opinion."
According to the official statement of their legal counsel Atty. Ana Alexandra Castro of the Yorac Sarmiento Arroyo Chua Coronel Reyes Law Firm, there was "no malice" in the website's nine-part report on issues involving the FDCP and its former chair.
According to the official statement of their legal counsel Atty. Ana Alexandra Castro of the Yorac Sarmiento Arroyo Chua Coronel Reyes Law Firm, there was "no malice" in the website's nine-part report on issues involving the FDCP and its former chair.
"In their Counter-Affidavit filed on 26 July 2024, the PEP editors argued that the complaint should be dismissed because two elements of the crime of cyber libel are lacking – (1) the allegation by the respondent of a discreditable act or condition concerning the complainant, and (2) the existence of malice on the part of the respondent."
"In their Counter-Affidavit filed on 26 July 2024, the PEP editors argued that the complaint should be dismissed because two elements of the crime of cyber libel are lacking – (1) the allegation by the respondent of a discreditable act or condition concerning the complainant, and (2) the existence of malice on the part of the respondent."
ADVERTISEMENT
"In particular, element (1) is not present, as the PEP editors did not personally ascribe a discreditable act or condition against the complainant."
"In particular, element (1) is not present, as the PEP editors did not personally ascribe a discreditable act or condition against the complainant."
"Rather, they merely reported on the information provided by their sources, sans any personal comments or opinions."
"Rather, they merely reported on the information provided by their sources, sans any personal comments or opinions."
"As for element (2), there was no malice in the publication of the subject article, as the same was but a fair and true report, made in good faith, on the issues surrounding the FDCP."
"As for element (2), there was no malice in the publication of the subject article, as the same was but a fair and true report, made in good faith, on the issues surrounding the FDCP."
"The said report was also duly supported by relevant documents," the statement said.
"The said report was also duly supported by relevant documents," the statement said.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT