COMPLAINT - AFFIDAVIT
I, REYNALDO GABATIN y RABE, of legal age, married, and a
resident of Brgy. Casilagan, Sta. Cruz, Ilocos Sur, after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:
1. That on June 6, 2018, while I was browsing through my Facebook
Account, surprisingly, I chanced upon and read a post authored by Dominica
Belmonte-Kern;
2. That said Facebook post contained the following malicious,
defamatory and libelous statements particularly directed to me, part of which
reads:
“Ikaw Rey Gabatin
xxx xxx xxx
Ikaw, kayo and malaking dahilan kung sia’y
namatay, Dahil ang pagtitiwala nia sa inyo ay
kawalanghiyaan, katurpihan, bulok utak nio, na di nio
man lang ipaliwanag, binalak na kawalanghiyaan sa
kanyang Adventure.
xxx xxx xxx
Manluluko ng tao. Mahiya-hiya kayo. Isa-uli nio
ang Auto sa pangalan ni kuya, dahil pinanakaw nio lang
ang Cedula na walang pahintulot o kaya dahilan lang sa
pag-alok alok sa alak, Bwisit kayo! Kayo ang malaking
dahilan kung bakit nawala ang pamangkin ko.
xxx xxx xxx”
a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “A”;
3. That said post was viewed by my family, other relatives and friends
considering that it was in a public view setting;
4. That yet again, Dominica Belmonte-Kern made the following
malicious, defamatory and libelous remarks in another post in continuation
of her tirades against me, viz:
“Turpe! mga walang modo.
xxx xxx xxx
ang pangluluko ay nasa utak ninyo.
Page1
xxx xxx xxx
Pwes, hang-gat hinde mag clear ito, hayaan
ninyong papasikatin ko kayo sa mga Gawain ninyong
panggaganso at pangluluko.
xxx xxx xxx”
a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “B”;
5. That the aforesaid posts tarnished my name and reputation in the
society and placed me and my family in a very bad light in our community
considering that the statements made therein depicts me as a very dishonest
person and a swindler;
6. That the incident was duly reported to the police authorities as
shown by the Extract Copies of the Police Blotter hereto attached as Annex
“C”;
7. That the circumstances herein mentioned are indubitable
manifestations that Dominica Belmonte-Kern is liable for Cyberlibel defined
and penalized under Republic Act No. 10175 or otherwise known as the
"Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012,″ to wit:
“Section 4. (c) (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.”
The Revised Penal Code provision on libel reads:
“Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is 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.”
8. For an imputation to be libelous under Art. 353 of the Revised
Penal Code, the following requisites must be present: (a) it must be
defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be given publicity; and (d)
the victim must be identifiable;
9. “An allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes to a person
the commission of a crime, the possession of a vice or defect, real or
imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance which
tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt, or which tends to
Page2
blacken the memory of one who is dead. In determining whether a statement
is defamatory, the words used are to be construed in their entirety and should
be taken in their plain, natural, and ordinary meaning as they would
naturally be understood by persons reading them, unless it appears that they
were used and understood in another sense. Moreover, a charge is sufficient
if the words are calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and understand
that the person or persons against whom they were uttered were guilty of
certain offenses or are sufficient to impeach the honesty, virtue or reputation
or to hold the person or persons up to public ridicule.
Malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but
merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed, and implies an
intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad
motive. It is the essence of the crime of libel.
There is publication if the material is communicated to a third person.
It is not required that the person defamed has read or heard about the
libelous remark. What is material is that a third person has read or heard the
libelous statement, for "a man's reputation is the estimate in which others
hold him, not the good opinion which he has of himself." Simply put, in
libel, publication means making the defamatory matter, after it is written,
known to someone other than the person against whom it has been written.
"The reason for this is that [a] communication of the defamatory matter to
the person defamed cannot injure his reputation though it may wound his
self-esteem. A man's reputation is not the good opinion he has of himself,
but the estimation in which others hold him.”
On the other hand, to satisfy the element of identifiability, it must be
shown that at least a third person or a stranger was able to identify him as
the object of the defamatory statement. It is enough if by intrinsic reference
the allusion is apparent or if the publication contains matters of description
or reference to facts and circumstances from which others reading the article
may know the person alluded to; or if the latter is pointed out by extraneous
circumstances so that those knowing such person could and did understand
that he was the person referred to.” (Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation
vs. Domingo, G.R. No. 170341, July 5, 2017);
10. Viewed in its entirety, the post and remarks authored by Dominica
Belmonte-Kern are libelous considering that (a) impeaches my virtue, credit,
and reputation as it depicts me as a swindler and dishonest, (b) the post was
publicized and read by third persons, (c) the post was directed to me as I was
particularly named therein, and (d) malice in law is presumed to exist and
need not be shown.
“Where the offended party is a private individual,
the prosecution need not prove the presence of malice.
The law explicitly presumes its existence (malice in law)
from the defamatory character of the assailed statement.
Page3
(Disni, Jr. vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335,
February 11, 2014)”
11. Libel in the cyberspace can of course stain a person’s image with
just one click of the mouse. Scurrilous statements can spread and travel fast
across the globe like bad news. Moreover, cyberlibel often goes hand in
hand with cyberbullying that oppresses the victim, his relatives, and friends,
evoking from mild to disastrous reactions. The cyberspace is an
incomparable, pervasive medium of communication. (Disni, Jr. vs. Secretary
of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014);
12. Freedom of expression enjoys an exalted place in the hierarchy of
constitutional rights. Free expression however, "is not absolute for it may be so
regulated that its exercise shall neither be injurious to the equal enjoyment of
others having equal rights, nor injurious to the rights of the community or
society." Libel stands as an exception to the enjoyment of that most guarded
constitutional right. (Lopez vs. People, G.R. No. 172203, February 14, 2011);
13. By reason of the foregoing, I am charging Dominica Belmonte-Kern
of the crime of CYBERLIBEL under Republic Act No. 10175 or the
"Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.″
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this
14th day of March 2019, at Sta. Cruz, Ilocos Sur.
REYNALDO GABATIN y RABE
Complainant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 14th day of March
2019. I hereby further certify that I have personally examined the affiant and
that he fully understood the contents hereof.
________________________
Page4
