Facade of Cebu City Hall of Justice. | Contributed photo/Kai Fuentes
CEBU CITY, Philippines — The camp of a Cebuano businessman and a lawyer is hopeful that they could continue with the proceedings in the court to face the lawyer they sued for cyber libel.
This, after the accused posted bail that temporarily suspended the proceedings.
On Tuesday, December 3, the camp of businessman Kaiser Christopher Tan and lawyer Francisco Amit Jr., represented by Lawyer Amando Ligutan told reporters that they hoped the court would re-evaluate the case and hear their side.
They were supposed to meet for arraignment and a pre-trial conference with the accused, Lawyer Estrella Elamparo, whom they sued for cyber libel last year.
READ MORE:
Businessman offers P1M for info leading to arrest of 3 alleged ‘scammers’
Mayor Chan files multiple cyber libel complaints vs vlogger
Prescription period for cyberlibel is 1 year – Supreme Court
Root of case
Ligutan said that Tan and Amit filed the case against Elamparo “after the city prosecutor found probable cause against the latter for the malicious imputations that she made in a Zoom meeting” or press conference with the media on March 29, 2023.
Because of these malicious imputations, Ligutan said, there was a finding of probable cause by the city prosecutor, and there was a warrant of arrest issued against Elamparo.
Ligutan added that Elamparo was able to post bail recently, and on December 3, they were supposedly meeting her for arraignment and pre-trial conference.
But he said that Elamparo filed for a motion to reset the case because she reportedly received a resolution from the Department of Justice (DOJ) reversing the decision.
“The court is holding in abeyance any other hearing on the matter. Again, my clients are Kaiser Tan and Atty. Alvarez. They are hopeful that the court will hear our side and that we go to trial,” Ligutan said.
Moreover, Ligutan said that they were “not aware” of the motion, but the moment they received one, they would oppose “vehemently the motion to reset.”
“I think the law is clear. Even if there is a DOJ resolution dismissing the case, it’s not automatic that the court will dismiss the case. The court has to exercise discretion, has to re-evaluate the case and we are hoping that the court will rule in our favor. We just want our day in court,” he said.
Ligutan said that the accusations were grave and they would like the court to hear the parties instead of dismissing the case.
Offshoot of a case
For the record, Ligutan said that the case was an “offshoot” of the case involving businesswoman Michelle Go-Chu, and the counsel of that case was Elamparo.
Ligutan said that according to Elamparo, the resolution of the city prosecutor stated that his clients were allegedly responsible for the death threats received by the judges who handled the estafa case filed by Tan against Go-Chu, and for allegedly influencing decisions.
“I’m paraphrasing [it], but that’s the gist. Imputing against my clients as being responsible, or hinting as being responsible for the death threats received by the judges, and for influencing decisions. So, these are great accusations. That’s why we’re asking the court, let’s just hear the case on the merits,” Ligutan explained.
Elamparo’s response
In a phone interview with Elamparo on Wednesday, December 4, she confirmed to CDN Digital that the DOJ issued a resolution to their petition for review on the said case, and she also confirmed she posted bail in November.
“Basically, the DOJ upheld our position that there is no probable cause to file a cyber libel against me and the DOJ directed the Office of the City Prosecutor of Cebu to withdraw the criminal case against me,” Elamparo said.
Hence, the court was holding in abeyance in view of the DOJ’s ruling and decision, she said.
She said that when the DOJ said that the case should not be prosecuted, then the Office of the City Prosecutor had the control over it.
“And the Office of the City Prosecutor is under the DOJ. The private complainant cannot dictate upon the public prosecutor, cannot dictate upon the DOJ,” she said.
“We’re hoping that the private complainant will respect, will first await the ruling of the court and respect the ruling of the DOJ kasi (because) under our law, the private complainant does not control criminal prosecution, it is the public prosecutor,” she added.
Elamparo also hopes that Tan’s camp would wait for the court’s ruling because everyone would just adhere to it.