Former Vice-Mayor of Davao City Pulong Duterte and his brother in law Atty. Mans Carpio filed recently a Libel case in Davao City against Sen. Trillanes over the latter’s libelous statements in a radio interview with Leo Lastimosa of DYAB Cebu on September 8, 2017, where it was alleged by Trillanes that they were committing Corruption and Extortion.
Atty. Reynaldo Robles, the lawyer of Trillanes, in his statement that I heard over the news on TV last night, revealed that he is going to file a motion to quash the libel case on the ground of improper venue because the subject case was filed in Davao City and not in Cebu City RTC (Regional Trial Court). The lawyer asserts that under the law, the place where the libelous statement was committed shall have jurisdiction over the case. Admittedly, Atty. Robles has a snake in his head as he defends the indefensible.
Atty. Robles who, among others, are the self-proclaimed legal luminaries from the yellow fence that the mainstream media camouflaged as “legal experts” as they were feasting on the prime time accorded to them by the TV stations. But the public didn’t know that these so-called law experts like Atty. Robles herein are just making a creative license that is hardly credible but subject to suspicion since they are devoid of any evidentiary weight, for they are mere assertions and guesswork. Indeed, the natural question is why anyone like Atty. Robles should want to plead groundlessly when he should know that he will not be able to make his pleading good when proof is called for.
Pertinently, the said arguments of the good lawyer on improper venue are born more of fecundity in the formulation and less of bases in law even when I decided to anatomize my compañero’s argument with some expense of prolixity. To confute his antithetical position apropos to the established doctrine, it would indeed be desirable for said counsel to hereafter deal with the merits of the libel case with more perspicacity and circumspection.
As it turned out, in a long line of cases decided by the Supreme Court, the action for libel shall be filed in the RTC of the province/city where the statement was aired or was heard, and/or was viewed by the aggrieved party over the radio or television stations. Interestingly, by using common sense and common weal, you can see the reasons of such a doctrine consistently established by the Supreme Court in the sense that where else could the reputation of a person be dishonored or besmirched in a worse possible way but in his hometown? So, VM Pulong and Atty. Carpio was correct when they filed the case in Davao City, which is their hometown.
By way of conclusion, the ground of improper venue upon which the motion to quash was to be anchored is like the antiquated wiring in an old house the details sputter and burnout when specific parts are tested.
No comments:
Post a Comment