THE libel case against columnist-broadcaster Pablito “Bobby” Nalzaro was filed in the Regional Trial Court in Cebu City last Wednesday.
The prosecutor junked the broadcaster’s plea to drop the charges. Bail was set at P10,000.
Nalzaro was accused of “intentionally” and “maliciously” maligning former Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña in a Sun.Star Cebu column on Oct. 25, 2014.
Nalzaro’s lawyer, Joan Baron of the J.P. Garcia and Associates, said they are asking the Department of Justice (DOJ) to review the findings of acting Cebu City Prosecutor Jesus Rodrigo Taga-an.
The petition for review before the DOJ will hold off Nalzaro’s arraignment, but not his arrest.
READ: 2 prosecutors pulled out from Nalzaro libel case
“If there’s an order for an arrest, we will ask for the determination of probable cause,” Baron said in a text message to CDN yesterday.
Lawyer Earl Bonachita, former president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ Cebu City chapter, said a petition for review does not automatically suspend the issuance of an arrest warrant.
“He (Nalzaro) may file a motion to suspend the proceedings and to suspend the implementation of the arrest warrant. But it is entirely discretionary on the trial court to grant or deny it,” he said.
READ: Libel rap against Nalzaro to get a full-blown trial
Osmeña sued Nalzaro for writing that the former mayor fabricated charges against Cebu City Treasurer Diwa Cuevas in an attempt to sabotage the administration of Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama.
In his defense, Nalzaro said that actual malice – a key element of libel – wasn’t present in the column. The prosecutor, however, said the word “fabricated” is clearly defamatory and placed Osmeña in a bad light.
Osmeña was able to prove that the administrative cases he filed against Cuevas with the Department of Finance were based on findings of the 2012 and 2013 reports of the Commission on Audit.
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.
