A barangay secretary of Madua Sur in Duero town is facing unjust vexation charge and not cyberlibel for a Facebook post allegedly directed to the former vice mayor of the said town.
Judge Samuel Biliran of the Regional Trial Court branch 50 based in Loay, Bohol released an order finding probable cause for the commission of crime of unjust vexation on a certain “Kareen R. Sumampong”.
“After going over personally of the record submitted to the court and conducting an independent evaluation of the evidence on evaluation of the evidence on record including the Information, Joint Resolution, the affidavits of witnesses and such other evidence, the undersigned finds and holds that the evidence supports a finding of probable cause for the commission of the crime of Unjust Vexation in relation to Sec. 6 of R.A. 10175, and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial,” the judge said in his order dated May 5, 2020.
In the same order, the judge said,” It appearing that NO BAIL IS REQUIRED, the court hereby sets the case for ARRAIGNMENT and PRE-TRIAL on July 31, 2020 at 9:30 o’clock in the morning.”
As of this writing, there was no information available to The Bohol Tribune about the resetting of the arraignment as the date set by the court fell on a holiday. July 31, 2020 was a special non-working holiday.
THE CASE
In a joint resolution signed by Alexander Tradio, Associate Provincial Prosecutor and Macario Delusa, Provincial Prosecutor, the case stems from the Facebook posts of Sumampong.
There are two (2) cases filed against Sumampong by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) on behalf of private complainant, former Duero Vice Mayor Emma Fe Peligro-Bajade, with case numbers NPS-VII-02-INV-19K-01422 and NPS-VII-02-INV-19K-01422 originally for cyberlibel.
The resolution said,” This resolves the complaints for Violation of Article 355 in relation to Section 4 (c) 4 and Section 6 of R.A. 10175 or “The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012” filed by herein complainant Atty. Rennan Augustus T. Oliva, Agent-in-Charge, NBI-Bohol District Office. The private complainant is Emma Fe Peligro- Bajade (Mrs.Bajade), of legal age, married and a resident of Duero, Bohol. Respondent, on the other hand, is Kareen Sumampong (Sumampong), of legal age and a resident of Madua Sur, Duero, Bohol”
“In her Complaint-Affidavit, Mrs. Bajade stated that in the May 2019 elections, she ran for the position of Mayor in the Municipality of Duero, Bohol and lost. Even before the campaign period, respondent Sumampong, an avid supporter of the opposing candidate posted baseless and malicious remarks against Mrs. Bajade on facebook under the account name “Kyang Rangas Sumampong” which were seen by most of Mrs. Bajade’s supporters who called her attention about it. Aggrieved and maligned, Mrs. Bajade filed a case for Violation of R.A. 10175 against Sumampong at the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor which was eventually dismissed. In short, Mrs. Bajade’s complaint against Sumampong was dismissed and she also lost in the May 2019 mayoralty election in the Municipality of Duero, Bohol,” the joint resolution added.
In the same resolution it reads,” Mrs. Bajade stated that at around 8:00 o’clock in the morning on July 30, 2019, she was informed that respondent Sumampong was arrested for illegal possession of firearm. She was further informed that Sumampong posted on her facebook account under the account name Kyang Rangas” the following:
“Ug mka gawas kog maka pyansa. ug naa man gani mahitabo nq dautan ug ipapatay man q nimo wa koy laing kontra nga maimpluwensya IKAW RA!..kasuko ba nimo na dismiss imong complaint against me. Plus PILDE PA GYUD KA!!!”
The resolution then stated, “Immediately, Mrs. Bajade searched the account name “Kyang Rangas” and saw for herself the above-quoted post. Upon reading it, it right away came to her mind that Sumampong was referring to her as there was no other person who filed a case against her and who also lost in the recent election. According to Mrs. Bajade, Sumampong’s post insinuated that she has the intention of killing her if ever she can post bail in her case. It insinuated that she is a killer.”
Furthermore, the resolution reads, “In another post, Sumampong stated: “manugon man gani q mop alit ug branded nga butang kay mahal kay sa akong utok ajo pay ipalit pagkaon. unya karon armas na hioorn. unsaon man ng na? Ginoo ko ikaw nay bahala ning tanan. Limpyo akong konsisya wa q anang butanga. Gabaan ra Mahal man cguro na. usa pa ang tawong nag paluyo anig butang ug sala nq. Ka maayo pud. Bantog ra diay pila n aka gabie dili q katolog tarong kay naa jud mabatian ng maglakaw2 sa gawas…ang iro cgeg usig. MAO DIAY!! MAO DIAY!!! Cge lang!…atubangon ko ni!.lipay na kang buanga ka makatilaw kog rehas…ilabina kay the game is not yet over paman kaha…kasuko kay na dismiss iyanh complaint…same name MA. KAREN SUMAMPONG!!! Di na na ikatinga ug kinsa! Maimpluwensya!!!”
In the same resolution, it was stated, “Mrs. Bajade pointed out that the words “armas” which in English means firearm, “makatilaw kog rehas” which in English means “behind bars”, “na dismiss ang iyang complaint” which in English means comploaint was dismissed and “Ma. Karen Sumampong” in the said post would only lead to the conclusion that the person under the facebook account name “Kyang Rangas” is respondent Sumampong.”
“Further, Mrs. Bajade stated that the act of Sumampong in posting on facebook libelous and defamatory statements against her was done with malice. She had no other reason to post the said libelous and defamatory statements but to malign, discredit and dishonor her person. Sumampong’s action caused so much hurt, pain and damage not only to her but to her family as well,” the prosecutors said.
“To corroborate Mrs. Bajade’s statements, the latter submitted the Affidavits of Niño Angelo G. Cuadra (Mr. Cuadra) and Roseller Latimado Tabacon (Ms. Tabacon). In the Affidavit executed by Mr. Cuadra, he stated to the effect that he personally knows Sumampong. He knows that Mrs. Bajade ran for mayor in Duero, Bohol but lost during the 2019 elections. Both Mrs. Bajade and Sumampong are his facebook friends. Mrs. Bajade’s facebook account name is “Emma Bajade” while Karen’s facebook account name is “Kyang Rangas”. He likewise knows that Mrs. Badaje filed a case a against Sumampong but was dismissed. On July 30, 2019, Mr. Cuadra read the above-quoted posts of Sumampong on facebook. Upon reading them, it immediately came to his mind that the person being referred to by Sumapong was Mrs. Bajade. He then sent private messages to Sumampong regarding her posts. According to Mr. Cuadra, although Sumampong did not categorically mention in their conversation to whom she was referring to in her posts, he can say that she was referring to Mrs. Bajade because the latter was Mrs. Bajade well as respondent as the only person who filed a case against Sumampong that was dismissed and at the same time lost in the May 2019 elections,” the prosecutors bare in the resolution.
“Ms. Tabacon, in her affidavit, likewise stated to the effect that she personally knows both Mrs. Badaje and respondent Sumampong. They are both her friends on facebook. She knows that Mrs. Badaje, who lost when she ran for the position of mayor during the 2019 elections owns the facebook account “Emma Bajade” while Sumampong, her neighbor, owns the facebook account “Kyang Rangas”. Sumampong was arrested in the morning of July 30, 2019 and several minutes after she was brought away from her house by the police, she was able to read the afore-quoted posts on her facebook account. Upon reading the afore-quoted posts, it immediately came to Ms. Tabacon’s mind that the person being referred to by Sumampong was Mrs. Bajade. This is because it was only Mrs. Bajade who filed a case against her that was dismissed and at the same time lost in the May 2019 elections. From her posts, Sumampong was accusing Mrs. Bajade to be the mastermind if ever she will be killed after posting bail, because allegedly, Mrs. Bajade is the only influential enemy of Sumampong. In the other post, Ms. Tabacon understood that Sumampong was accusing Mrs. Bajade to be the person orchestrating the raid against her,” the same resolution reads.
“To support the charge against respondent Sumampong, Mrs. Bajade submitted the following pieces of documentary evidence to this Office:
- Complaint-Affidavit of Emma Fe Peligro-Bajade;
- Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor filed by Emma Fe Peligro-Bajade:
- Cty/Municipal Certificate of Canvass;
- Complaint-Affidavit for NPS No. VII-02-INV-19A-00026;
- Resolution dated March 22, 2019;
- Screenshot of first post;
- Screenshot of facebook account profile of “Kyang Rangas”;
- Screenshot of second post;
- Affidavit of Niño Angelo G. Cuadra; and
- Affidavit of Roseller Lastimado Tabacon
- Joint Affidavit of Rosabel B. Quimson, Ma. Esperanza B. Genobatin, Maximo P. Tabaranza, Jr. and Marvina A. Renegado;
- Affidavit of Nilo Galve; and
- Screenshots of the posts/comments of Tusoy Pajo Vic.
During clarificatory hearing, both parties were present. Respondent also submitted her Counter-Affidavit and that of her witness in order to refute the allegations against her,” the resolution said.
“In her Counter-Affidavit, Sumampong vehemently denied the allegations against her and stated that there is no proof that she is the source of the alleged libelous messages. Aside from the bare statements of private complainant and the unverified screenshots of facebook messages, there is no other evidence that would show that the alleged defamatory statements came from her facebook account. Besides, private complainant did not submit proof that defamatory statements belongs to her. In fact, the printed screenshots the facebook account containing the alleged were not even authenticated nor verified. Sumampong further stated that the statements quoted by the complainant are themselves not libelous. expression of disgust and disappointment which are not themselves defamatory statements and without reference to any specific person. The statenments are so vague that the person referred therein cannot be clearly identified. The statements did not mention any names and without reference to any specific person. The statements did not mention any names and therefore, the person referred to therein is unidentifiable. A close scrutiny of the posts would show that the person referred to therein is neither mentioned nor given specific description which might lead the reading public to conclude that the private complainant is the one being referred to therein. The mere mention of the “dismissal of the complaint” filed against the author and the “defeat” of the person referred to in the questioned posts fail the fourth element of libel, which is, the victim must be identifiable. The term “complaint” is so broad that it might refer to any forms of complaint filed before any tribunal including those filed in the barangay or private disciplining bodies. Whereas, the word “defeat” may refer to any forms of defeat. It does not mean of a “defeat” during the elections. Sumampong further stated that the alleged defamatory statements were just lifted from unverified and uncertified screenshots. There is nothing in the Complaint-Affidavit that would show the authenticity of the screeshots allegedly taken from the Facebook account of “Kyang Rangas”. Anybody who is an expert in editing or making lay-out can produce such screenshots, hence, they have no evidentiary. They were just a value,” the prosecutors mentioned.
“To support respondent Sumampong’s defense, Rosenda C. Naios (Ms. Najos) Executed an Affidavit which stated to the effect that she knows Mrs. Bajade and respondent Sumampong. She came to know that Mrs. Bajade filed a case for online libel against Sumampong. Out of curiousity, she read the Complaint-Affidavit and read the facebook posts allegedly posted by Sumampong that were alleged to defame the name of Mrs. Bajade. Upon reading the facebook posts. Ms. Najos did not find them defamatory on the reputation of Mrs. Bajade. Besides, Mrs. Bajade was not named nor described in those posts,” the resolution reads.
“To support her defense, respondent Sumampong submitted the following pieces of documentary evidence to this Office: - Counter-Affidavit of Kareen R. Sumampong; and
2.Sinumpaang Pamahayag of Rosenda C. Najos.
In the findings and recommendations section of the resolution, it reads,“Section 4(c) 4 of Republic Act No. 10175 or otherwise known as Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 provides:
Sec. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. – The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable under this Act:
XXXX
(c) Content-related Offenses:
XXXX
(4) Libel. – The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.
Xxx.
“Meanwhile, Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code defines libel as public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead,” the resolution reveals.
“As established by our case laws and jurisprudence, the elements of libel are: (a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (b) publication of the charge; (c) identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice,” the resolution reads.
“Based on the screenshots of posts marked as Annex “E” and “G” submitted by Mrs. Bajade, it appears that facebook user Kyang Rangas posted on her facebook account two posts,” the prosecutors bare.
“The first post reads: “Ug mka gawas kog maka pyansa. ug naa man gani mahitabo nq dautan ug ipapatay man q nimo wa koy laing kontra nga maimpluwensya IKAW RA!..kasuko ba nimo na dismiss imong complaint against me. Plus PILDE PA GYUD KA!!!”, which if translated in English means “If I can go out and post bail, if something bad will happen to me and if you will order that I be killed, I have no other enemy who has influence but you! Why are you angry that the complaint you filed against me was dismissed. Plus you were defeated!” the resolution further reads.
“And the second post reads: “manugon man gani q mop alit ug branded nga butang kay mahal kay sa akong utok ajo pay ipalit pagkaon. unya karon armas na hinoon. Mahal man cguro na. usa pa unsaon man ng na? Ginoo ko ikaw nay bahala ning tanan. Limpyo akong konsisya wa q anang butanga. Gabaan ra ang tawong nag paluyo anig butang ug sala nq. Ka maayo pud. Bantog ra diay pila n aka gabie dili q katolog tarong kay naa jud mabatian ng maglakaw2 sa gawas…ang iro cgeg usig. MAO DIAY!!! MAO DIAY!!! Cge lang!..atubangon ko ni!…lipay na kang buanga ka makatilaw kog rehas…ilabina kay the game is not over paman kaha…kasuko biti kay na dismiss complaint…same name MA. KAREN SUMAMPONG!!! ikatinga ug kinsa! Maimpluwensya!!!”, which if translated in English means, “I would even find it a waste to buy branded items because they are expensive for in my mind, it is better to buy food. And then now, firearms. I think firearms are expensive. And what will I do with them? God, I entrust to you everything. conscience is clear for I am not involved in those things. Karma will fall upon the person who was behind in imputing a crime against me. So well played. This must be the reason why for several nights already, I cannot sleep for I can hear footsteps outside… the dogs are always barking. That is why! That is why! It’s alright… I will face this. You are now happy, you crazy one, that I can experience life behind bars… especially that the game is not over… you are angry that the complaint you filed against me was dismissed… same name MA. KAREN SUMAMPONG!!! It is no longer surprising who this person is! A person of influence!…” the resolution ssid.
“For her defense, respondent Sumampong vehemently denies that the aforesaid posts/statements came from her facebook account. However, witnesses Mr. Cuadra and Ms. Tabacon, who happen to be facebook friends of both Mrs. Bajade and respondent Sumampong in their respective Affidavits stated that they know respondent Sumampong to be the owner of facebook account Kyang Rangas. Since this Office finds no reason for the aforementioned witnesses to fabricate a story against respondent Sumampong, we give credence to their statements. People of the Philippines vs. Peteluna, et. al.’, the Supreme Court emphatically declared that: Denial is inherently weak if uncorroborated…It is a time-honored principle that the positive identification of the appellant by a witness destroys the defense of alibi and denial. Thus: X x x It is well-entrenched that alibi and denial are inherently weak and have always been viewed with disfavor by the courts due to the facility with which they can be concocted. They warrant the least credibility or none at all and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the appellant by the prosecution like alibi, as an exonerating witnesses… Denial, justification, is inherently weak and if uncorroborated regresses to blatant impotence. Like alibi, it also constitutes self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters,” the resolution bares.
“Further, this Office is likewise convinced that it was Mrs. Bajade whom respondent Sumampong was referring to in her afore-quoted posts/statements. From the aforesaid posts, it is clear that the person referred to therein is one who filed a complaint against the author of the post but was subsequently dismissed and one who was defeated. In this case, Mrs. Bajade was able to sufficiently establish that she filed a complaint (marked as Annex “A’) against Sumampong on January 17, 2019 for cyberlibel before this Office which was dismissed by its Investigating Prosecutor in his Resolution dated March 22, 2019 (marked as Annex “D”) and that she ran for mayor in the Municipality of Duero, Bohol during the last elections but lost as shown by her Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor (marked as Annex “A”) and City/Municipal Certificate of Canvass (marked as Annex “B”). In fact, Mr. Cuadra and Ms. 1 G.R. No. 187048, January 23, 2013; Tabacon, who are both facebook friends of Mrs. Bajade and respondent Sumampong stated in their Affidavits that they were able to figure out that respondent Sumampong was referring to Mrs. Bajade in her posts,” the prosecutors said.
“Nonetheless, upon careful examination of the first post, this Office is of the view that it does not contain defamatory words as to constitute the crime of libel in relation to Section 4 (c) 4 of R.A. 10175. While it appears that respondent Sumampong insinuated in her post that Mrs. Bajade has the intention of killing her, it must be stressed that intent to commit a crime is not a violation of the law. Thus, it cannot be said that the said post contains a statement that imputes a crime against Mrs. Bajade. contains mere assertions or expressions of opinions of Mrs. Bajade’s future act or conduct, hence, not libelous.,” the prosecutors said
The prosecutors said, “This does not mean, however, that no cybercrime offense was committed by respondent Sumampong. Section 6 of R.A. 10175 provides that “All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.” In this case, this Office finds respondent Sumampong’s act of posting in her facebook account Kyang Rangas statements insinuating that Mrs. Bajade has the intention of killing her if she can go out and post bail to have annoyed, irritated, tormented or disturbed the mind of Mrs. Bajade. respondent Sumampong with the crime of unjust vexation punished under Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 73 of R.A. 10951 committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies, particularly that of the internet through the social media site “facebook”.
“On the second post, upon carefully reading it in its entirety, this Office finds it to contain mere assertions or expressions of opinions. Hence, relative to the second post, we do not find probable cause to charge respondent Sumampong with libel in relation to Section 4 (c) 4 of R.A. 10175 or with violation of Section 6 thereof.
“In sum, this Office finds probable cause to charge respondent Kareen Sumampong for the crime of Unjust Vexation in relation to Section 6 of R.A. 10175 relative to the first post she made on her facebook account Kyang Rangas (docketed under NPS-VII-02-INV-19K-01421). We do not, however, find probable cause to charge respondent Sumampong for Violation of Article 355 in relation to Section 4 (c) 4 and Section 6 of R.A. 10175 relative to her second post,” the prosecutors mentioned in the resolution.
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, for NPS-VII-02-INV-19K-01421, let an information for the crime of Unjust Vexation as amended, committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies in relation to Section 6 of R.A. 10175 or otherwise known as Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 be filed against respondent KAREEN SUMAMPONG before Branch 50, Regional Trial Court in Loay, Bohol.
“The crime charged under NPS-VII-02-INV-19K-01422 is hereby ordered DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence,” the prosecutors said in the same resolution.