Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 112
Pasay City, NCR

ATTY. CARLOS "DING" SO,

        Plaintiff,       CRIM. CASE No. 99-1597
              -versus-   FOR: LIBEL

MR. ERWIN TULFO, et.al.

           Accused.
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
ACCUSED, through the undersigned counsel, before this
Honorable Court, respectfully submits this Pre-Trial Brief:

SUMMARY OF ADMITTED FACTS ANDPROPOSED

STIPULATION OF FACTS

The accused admits the following:

1. That during the four dates of the publication of the questioned

articles, the complaining witness was not assigned at South
Harbor;
2. That the accused and complaining witness did not know
each other during all the time material to the four dates
of publication;
3. That Remate is a newspaper/tabloid of general circulation
in the Philippines;
4. The column therein and its authorship and the alleged
libelous statement as well as the editorial post containing
the designated positions of the other accused.
The accused denies the following:

1. The allegation of Atty. Carlos “Ding” So in his affidavit. In fact, I

did not write the subject articles with malice and I do not intent
to discredit or dishonor nor injuring and exposing the
complainant to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.

2. Criticism of a certain Atty. So of the South Harbor was not

directed against the complainant, but against a person by the
name of Atty. "Ding" So at the South Harbor.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not the accused is guilty of libel.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF PARTIES’ CLAIMS’

Plaintiff’s Claims

Briefly, plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that:

1. Atty. Carlos So, Filipino, a resident of Manila, lawyer, and an

officer of the Customs Intelligence and Investigation Service
Division of the Bureau of Customs;
2. Accused, being then the columnist, publisher and managing
editor, respectively of "REMATE", a tabloid published daily and
of general circulation in the Philippines, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with malicious intent to
discredit or dishonor me so, and with the malicious intent of
injuring and exposing my name to public hatred, contempt and
ridicule, wrote and published in the regular issue of said
publication on its daily column "DIRECT HIT”;
 3. There is no other Atty. Carlos So in the Customs Intelligence
and Investigation Service Division of the Bureau of Customs
other than me;
4. The publication and allegations are false and with no legal
basis. These are just malicious publications to discredit my
honor and integrity as a public servant. The statements
published were products of incorrect invocation of freedom of
expression which harmed not only me but including my wife
and children.

Defendant’s Claims

In its answer ad cautela, defendants interpose following

defense:

1. That I deny the allegation of Atty. Carlos “Ding” So in his

affidavit. In fact, I did not write the subject articles with malice
and I do not intent to discredit or dishonor nor injuring and
exposing the complainant to public hatred, contempt and
ridicule.

2. Criticism of a certain Atty. So of the South Harbor was not

directed against the complainant, but against a person by the
name of Atty. "Ding" So at the South Harbor.

AMMICABLE SETTLEMENT

That the accused is open and willing to submit this case to any
alternative mode of dispute settlement and likewise they are willing to
settle this case amicably provided that the terms and conditions
thereof are fair and reasonable.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Respectfully submitted this 15 December 1999 at Pasay City,
Philippines.