In the second, she questioned the timing of an environmental audit on Apo Cement Corporation and suggested possible irregularities.
Gwen claimed these statements damaged her reputation and dishonored her office. But, Baricuatro denied the allegations, maintaining that her statements were framed as questions rather than assertions.
Baricuatro said the remarks were made in connection with her duties as a public official and were intended to raise issues of public concern.
She also cited executive orders issued after the 2018 Cebu landslide as a basis for raising questions on the timing of environmental audits.
The Cebu Provincial Prosecutor’s Office, after preliminary investigation, dismissed the complaints for lack of “prima facie evidence.” It found that the alleged January 30 video could not be sufficiently established as published.
As for the February 9 video, prosecutors ruled that it did not constitute libel, noting that the statements were in interrogatory form, used ordinary language, and did not show malice.
No malice established
Prosecutors emphasized that malice is a required element in cyberlibel cases. They said the remarks were part of fair comment on matters of public interest.
The DOJ agreed with this finding, noting that the statements did not show ill will, personal spite, or reckless disregard for the truth.
In its ruling, the DOJ cited jurisprudence stating that public officials are open to criticism in relation to their official duties.
It stressed that comments on public affairs, when made without improper motive, do not automatically amount to libel. The ruling added that even inaccurate statements do not necessarily prove malice.
The DOJ highlighted that statements framed as questions, especially when based on publicly known facts, do not easily meet the threshold for libel. It said such expressions are protected, particularly when they relate to issues of public concern.
The department underscored that actual malice must still be proven in cases involving public figures.
Aside from the merits of the case, the DOJ also pointed out procedural gaps in Gwen’s petition. These included the failure to indicate when she received the earlier resolution, making it difficult to determine if her appeal was filed on time. There were also missing documents and inconsistencies in her submissions.
The DOJ found the denial of Gwen’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration proper. It said her explanations failed to justify the delay in filing. The department added that her submissions were largely unsupported and contained inconsistencies.
The ruling reiterated that findings of prosecutors on probable cause are generally respected. Such findings may only be overturned if there is clear proof of grave abuse of discretion.
In this case, the DOJ said no such abuse was established. It said this standard was not met in Gwen’s complaint. Thus, there was no reason to reverse the earlier dismissal of the case
“Accordingly, this Office finds no cogent reason to disturb the assailed Joint Resolutions,” the DOJ said, thus ordering the dismissal of Gwen’s petition for review.
Baricuatro expresses relief
Following the ruling, Baricuatro expressed relief over the outcome. She said justice had prevailed in the case. “Ingon ani jud ni basta wala ka’y sala, justice will serve itself. Mao rana’y akong masulti,” she said during a press conference.
The complaint was originally endorsed by the National Bureau of Investigation to the Cebu prosecutors. It recommended the filing of two counts of cyberlibel under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
After a careful review, the DOJ, through Secretary Fredderick Vida, dismissed the petition for review, effectively ending the cyberlibel case filed by Garcia against Baricuatro.
