Republic of the Philippines )

_________________ ) S.S.

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

I, FRANCIS PANCRATIUS N. PANGILINAN, of legal age,

Filipino, married, and with address at ____________________,
having been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose
and state that:

1. I am an incumbent Senator of the Republic of the

Philippines, and I have been serving as a Senator since 2016.

2. I am filing this complaint against the owner/s,

author/s, and person/s responsible for the creation and
management of the YouTube channel, LATEST CHIKA, and the
libelous videos posted therein, for the crime of Libel under
Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175, also known as the
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, in relation to Article 355 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

3. I am also filing this complaint against MS.

BERNADETTE NACARIO as country Manager of GOOGLE
PHILIPPINES for violating Section 20(b)(1) and Section 30(j) of
the Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No.
10175, otherwise known as Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

4. LATEST CHIKA is a YouTube channel that can be

accessed through the following URL or link:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2UbKVGmJ5at-
WgJo6e1TuA. Based on the information on its channel, LATEST
CHIKA joined YouTube on 28 September 2020.

5. On 20 May 2021, LATEST CHIKA authored and

posted a video on its Youtube channel entitled, “JUST IN!
SHARON Cuneta DINEMANDA ang ASAWA nitong si KIKO
PANGILINAN!” The video may be accessed through the
following URL or link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z-
AqU3eiJ4&t=3s. A copy of the video thumbnail and screenshot
are attached as Annexes “A” and “A-1”.

6. The video thumbnail (Annex “A”) contained the

following text: “OMG! Dinemanda n ani Sharon si Kiko!
‘Kailangan ko itong Gawin dahil Hindi ko na kaya ang
Pananakit mo sakin Kiko!’”

Page 1 of 27
 7. Said video contained statements that I physically
hurt or abused my wife, Sharon Cuneta-Pangilinan, and that
she and our daughter, KC Concepcion, have filed a case against
me for physical injuries. An excerpt of the video is quoted below:

“xxx Ayon sa aming reliable source ay ang

naging dahilan umano ng muntikang
pagkabulag ni Megastar ay dahil sa
pananakit umano ng asawa nitong si Kiko
Pangilinan. xxx

Dahil dito ay nagsampa na di umano ng

kaso si KC maging si Sharon laban kay
Kiko Pangilinan. Nireklamo nila ito sa
kasong pananakit ng pisikal ni Kiko kay
Sharon, ngunit sa kabila nito ay pilit pa
ding itinatanggi ni Kiko ang akusasyon sa
kanya ng kanyang asawang si Sharon
Cuneta.”

8. As of 07 June 2021, said video has 116,876 views.

9. On 21 May 2021, LATEST CHIKA authored and

posted a video on its YouTube channel entitled, “NAKAKAAWA!
KIKO Pangilinan NAGLUPASAY Paghingi ng TAWAD kay
SHARON Cuneta!” The video may be accessed through the
following URL or link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLxzmT1IxuU&t=2s. A
copy of the video thumbnail and screenshot are attached as
Annexes “B” and “B-1”.

10. The video thumbnail (Annex “B”) contained the

following text: “Kiko Nagmakaawa kay Sharon! ‘Patawarin mo
na ako please… ‘iurong mon a ang Kas0…”

11. Said video also contained statements that I

physically hurt or abused my wife Sharon and that she and our
daughter, KC, have filed a case against me because of it. An
excerpt of the video is quoted below:

“xxx Ayon nga sa aming reliable source ay

si Kiko Pangilinan umano ang may
kagagawan sa nangyaring ito kay
Megastar. Sinasaktan umano ng pisikal ni
Kiko si Sharon sa tuwing magseselos at
mag-aaway ang mag-asawa. Ang ugaling
ito umano ni Kiko ay matagal na kinimkim

Page 2 of 27
 at itinago ni Sharon. Ngunit sa
pagkakataong ito hindi na umano
pinalampas ni Sharon ang ginawang ito ni
Kiko sa kanya na nagdulot sa kanya ng
trauma at muntikang pagkabulag ng
aktres. Ayon pa sa aming source ay
nagsampa na umano ng kasi si Sharon
kasama ang anak nitong panganay na si
KC Concepcion. Ayon kay KC hindi na
umano katanggap tanggap ang ginawang
ito ng kanyang stepfather sa kanyang
mama kaya nagdesisyon na silang
sampahan ito ng kaso. Samantala hindi
naman matanggap ni Kiko na sinampahan
na agad siya ng kaso ni KC. Ayon kay Kiko
ay aksidente lang umano ang nangyaring
ito kay Sharon. Hindi umano niya
sinasadyang gawin ito sa kanyang asawa.
Humihingi naman ngayon ng second
chance si Kiko kay Sharon maging sa anak
nitong si KC. Nangangako din itong hindi
na niya muling pagbubuhatan ng kamay
ang kanyang asawa. Nagmamakaawa din
ito na sana ay i-urong n ani Sharon ang
kaso laban sa kanya. Halos maglupasay
nga di umano si Kiko paghingi ng
kapatawaran sa asawa nitong si Sharon.”

12. As of 07 June 2021, said video has already garnered

228,164 views.

13. On 22 May 2021, LATEST CHIKA authored and

posted a video on its YouTube channel entitled,
“NAGKAHARAP NA! KIKO Pangilinan SINUGOD si MARCO
Gumabao at SHARON Cuneta!” The video may be accessed
through the following URL or link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HYiAj_AL5s. A copy of
the video thumbnail and screenshot are attached as Annexes
“C” and “C-1”.

14. The video thumbnail (Annex “C”) contained the

following text: “’Tumigil ka na, tanggapin mo na, ako ang
mahal ng asawa mo! ‘Hindi ko kayo titigilan hanggat hindi
kayo nakukul0ng! mga Bab0y!”

Page 3 of 27
 15. Said video contained statements that I physically
hurt or abused my wife Sharon and that she has filed a case
against me. An excerpt of the video is quoted below:

“xxx Ito na rin marahil ang dahilan ni Kiko

kung bakit niya nasaktan ng pisikal si
Sharon bago pa man ito magtungo sa
ibang bansa. Napabalita din na nagsampa
na ng kaso ang kampo ni Sharon laban
kay Kiko dahil sa pananakit nito kay
Sharon. xxx”

16. As of 07 June 2021, said video garnered 110,453

views.

17. Also on 22 May 2021, LATEST CHIKA again authored

and posted a video on its YouTube channel entitled, “BISTADO
NA! SHARON Cuneta at MARCO Gumabao SPOTED na
MAGKASAMA sa IBANG BANSA!” The video may be accessed
through the following URL or link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiCDDaSxf9U&t=3s. A
copy of the video thumbnail and screenshot are attached as
Annexes “D” and “D-1”.

18. The video thumbnail (Annex “D”) contained the

following text: “OMG! Si Marco Gumabao nga ang Kasama ni
Sharon sa ibang Bansa! ‘Manloloko ka Sharon! Magsama
kayo ng Lalaki mo!”

19. Said video also contained statements that I

physically hurt or abused my wife. An excerpt of the video is
quoted below:

“Marahil ito na din ang nagging dahilan ng

asawa ni Sharon na si Kiko Pangilinan
upang saktan ito nito pisikal na
kamuntikan nang ikabulag ni Megastar.
xxx”

20. As of 07 June 2021, said video already has 99,659

views.

21. On 24 May 2021, LATEST CHIKA authored and

posted a video on its YouTube channel entitled, “JUST IN!
KIKO Pangilinan NAGSAMPA na ng KAS0 laban sa ASAWA
nitong si SHARON Cuneta!” The video may be accessed
through the following URL or link:

Page 4 of 27
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzVWdqV1eIc. A copy of
the video thumbnail and screenshot are attached as Annexes
“E” and “E-1”.

22. The video thumbnail (Annex “E”) contained the

following text: “Nagsampa na ng Kas0 si Kiko laban kay
Sharon! ‘Kapal ng muka mong idemanda ako! Ikaw ang
dapat kasuhan dahl sa panlalaLaki mo!”

23. Said video authored and posted by LATEST CHIKA

contained statements that I filed a case against my wife Sharon
and that I physically hurt or abused her because of her alleged
affair with one Marco Gumabao. The statements in the video are
quoted below:

“JUST IN! Kiko Pangilinan nagsampa na

ng kaso laban sa asawa ntong si Sharon
Cuneta! Hindi pa din nga mamatay ang
issue sa pagitan ng mag-asawang Kiko
Pangilinan at Sharon Cuneta. Kamakailan
nga ay napabalita ang pananakit na
pisikal ni Kiko Pangilinan sa kanyang
asawa na si Sharon. Ayon sa balita ay
masyaodng seloso itong si Kiko lalo na’t sa
tuwing magkakaroon ng project si
Megastar at mayroon itong leading man.
Ayon sa aming nakalat na impormasyon
ay nasaktan ng sobra ni Kiko si Sharon na
humantong na nga sa pagkaospital at
muntikang pagkabulag ng aktres singer.
Dahil sa pangyayaring ito, hindi
matanggap ng anak na panganay ni
Sharon na si KC Concepcion ang sinapit
ng kanya mama sa kamay ng kanyang
stepfather at nagdecide na magsampa na
ng kaso laban kay Kiko. Samantala
habang umuusad naman ang kaso ay
usap-usapan naman ngayon sa buong
social media ang pagkakaroon ng
diumano ni Sharon ng lalaki. Nagsimula
ito noong magtungo si Megastar sa US at
maraming nakakita rito na may kasama
itong lalaki na mas bata sa kanya.
Espekulasyon ng karamihan ay si Marco
Gumabao umano ang kasamang ito ni
Sharon dahil kamakailan nga lang ay
naiugnay si Marco kay Sharon nang

Page 5 of 27
 magkatambalan ang mga ito sa isang
pelikula. Samantala labis labis naman
daw ngayon ang nararamdamang sakit ni
Kiko dahil sa ginawa sa kanya ng kanyang
asawa. Inaamin umano niya na
napagbuhatan niya ng kamay ang asawa
dahil nalaman niya na may lalaki ang
kanyang asawa. May karapat din naman
din umano siyang maghinanakit at
magalit sa asawa dahil sa ginagwa nito sa
kanya. Ngunit ang manlalaki at iwan
silang mag-ama ay napakasakit umano
para sa kanya at sa kanilang mga anak.
Hiling naman ni Kiko na sana matauhan
na si Sharon at maisipan nang bumalik sa
kanila nang hindi na umabot sa korte ang
gusot na ginawa ni Sharon.”

24. As of 07 June 2021, said video has 123,274 views.

25. Also on 24 May 2021, LATEST CHIKA posted another

video in its YouTube channel entitled, “NAGSALITA NA!
SHARON Cuneta BUONG TAPANG na INAMIN ang
RELASYON nila ni MARCO Gumabao!” The video may be
accessed through the following URL or link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIG84pujNjY. A copy of
the video thumbnail and screenshot are attached as Annexes
“F” and “F-1”.

26. The video thumbnail (Annex “F”) contained the

following text: “Nagsalita na si Sharon tungkol sa Relasyon
nil ani Marco! ‘Yes po, may relasyon kani ni Marco!
Nagmamahalan po kami!”

27. Said video authored and posted by LATEST CHIKA

again contained statements that I physically hurt or abused my
wife Sharon. An excerpt of the video is quoted below:

“xxx Lumabas din ang balitang sinasaktan

ni Kiko si Sharon na pisikal kaya ito na rin
siguro ang nag-udyok kay Sharon na
iwanan na ng tuluyan ang kanyang
asawa. xxx

Ayon kay Sharon iniwanan na umano niya

talaga si Kiko dahil nagsawa na umano

Page 6 of 27
 siya sa madalas na pananakit nito sa
kanya. xxx”

28. As on 07 June 2021, said video as 258,866 views.

29. The videos authored and posted by LATEST CHIKA

created in the minds of the viewers that I physically hurt or
abused my wife and caused her physical injuries and that she
has filed a criminal case against me for physical injuries.

30. The contents of the videos are all false, have no

factual basis and are intended to destroy or damage my
reputation as a Senator, public servant, and a husband to one
of the most beloved celebrities in the Philippines, my wife
Sharon. More importantly, the libelous videos are meant to
destroy the family. The libelous videos are not only intended to
damage my relationship with my wife but are also meant to
destroy my relationship with our children.

31. For the foregoing reasons, I am filing this complaint

for the crime of Libel under Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No.
10175, also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012,
in relation to Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
against the owner/s, author/s, and person/s responsible for
the creation and management of the YouTube channel, LATEST
CHIKA, and the libelous videos posted therein.

32. Under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, “[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.”

33. For an imputation to be libelous under Article 353 of

the Revised Penal Code, the following elements 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.1

34. All the elements of Libel are present in this case.

1Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation vs. Victor A. Domingo, G.R. No. 170341, 05
July 2017.

Page 7 of 27
 35. First, the videos are defamatory because they contain
malicious imputations of the crime, or an act or omission,
condition, status, or circumstance which tends to dishonor or
discredit, or put me in contempt. The videos contained
statements that I caused physical injuries to my wife, which is
a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code.

36. According to the case of Manila Bulletin Publishing

Corporation vs. Victor A. Domingo2:

“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 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.”

37. Second, the element of malice is also present in this

case.

38. 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.3

2G.R. No. 170341, 05 July 2017.

3Mary Elizabeth Ty-Delgado vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No.
219603, 26 January 2016.

Page 8 of 27
 39. According to Article 354 of the Revised Penal
Code, every defamatory imputation is presumed to be
malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable
motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases:

a. A private communication made by any person to

another in the performance of any legal, moral or
social duty; and

b. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without

any comments or remarks, of any judicial,
legislative or other official proceedings which are
not of confidential nature, or of any statement,
report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or
of any other act performed by public officers in the
exercise of their functions.

40. It is clear that the above exceptions find no

application in this case. As such, the statements made in the
videos are presumed to be malicious.

41. Malice is also evident by the use of thumbnails with

texts showing statements that I allegedly uttered. These video
thumbnails containing false statements were used to attract
viewers to click and watch the actual libelous videos.

42. Thumbnails are reduced-size versions of pictures of

videos, used to help in recognizing and organizing them.4
According to Digital Guide IONOS:

“The thumbnails used on YouTube must

attract the attention of the viewer in a few
seconds and encourage them to click on
the video. Views count on YouTube, and so
thumbnails play an important role. For a
YouTuber, a successful preview image is
the best way to gain clicks, views, and
possibly new subscribers. While thumbs
serve primarily as placeholders for images,
YouTubers can use them for other
purposes too. A video thumbnail is used
on YouTube like a kind of cinema poster
to advertise videos and appeal to
viewers. The aim is to stand out from

4“Thumbnail,” available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thumbnail (accessed on 07

June 2021).

Page 9 of 27
 the crowd. This turns the thumbnail into
advertising space in the YouTube search.”5

43. Moreover, as further evidence of malice, the owner/s,

author/s, or person/s responsible in the creation and
management of LATEST CHIKA and the libelous videos never
contacted me or my wife to inquire or confirm the truth or falsity
of the contents of the videos. He/She/They acted in reckless
disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statements in the video.

44. It also bears stressing that even after my wife Sharon

denied the rumors that I hit or abused her via her Instagram
live video on 28 May 2021, LATEST CHIKA still did not take
down the libelous videos. As of 07 June 2021, the libelous
videos are still available for viewing and accessible to the
general public. The libelous videos are also garnering more and
more viewers.

45. In Sharon’s Instagram live video on 28 May 2021,

she specifically said that:

“Chismis number one. Kaya daw ako

umalis kasi daw sinasaktan daw ako ni
Kiko. Mga kaibigan, alam ng Panginoon
Diyos, sa awa naman po Niya, mula sa
pagkabata ko wala ako nakilala, minahal
at nakasama o ano man na nasaktan ako.
Maaari sa puso pero hindi pisikal ever.
Ang asawa ko ni minsan, ni daliri niyan
hindi dumapo sa akin.”

45.1 Sharon’s Instagram live video may be accessed

through the following URL or link:
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CPaWx_TDQe
V/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=f3ccb6f3-
6109-4cb5-a93a-9e583fbc0c2c.

45.2 A copy of the screenshot of Sharon’s Instagram

live video is attached as Annex “G”.

46. Third, the element of publication is also present.

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

5 “Thumbnails – little pictures, lots of power,” available at

https://www.ionos.com/digitalguide/online-marketing/social-media/what-is-a-
thumbnail/ (accessed on 07 June 2021).

Page 10 of 27
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”6.

47. The videos were posted or published through LATEST

CHIKA’s YouTube channel, which is easily accessible to and
made available to the general public. In fact, the videos already
garnered thousands of views.

48. Finally, the element of identifiability is also present.

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.7

49. The videos clearly referred to me by my name and

even used my photographs. It is easy to determine that I am the
person referred to in the videos.

50. Due to said public and malicious imputations, I

suffered and continue to suffer damage to my good name,
reputation, and career as a public servant. The public and
malicious imputations have also caused serious anxiety and
stress to me and my family.

51. Considering that there is no information available to

me regarding the identity of the owner/s, author/s, or person/s
responsible in the creation and management of LATEST CHIKA
and the libelous videos, I humbly seek the assistance of the
National Bureau of Investigation – Cybercrime Division for the
following purposes:

a. To preserve the LATEST CHIKA YouTube video and

related data;
b. To collect computer data relative to the LATEST
CHIKA YouTube video, including the identity of the
owner/s, author/s, and person/s responsible for
the creation and management of LATEST CHIKA,
and the subject videos posted therein;
c. To require the service provider to disclose or
submit LATEST CHIKA’s information and relevant
data;
d. To search and seize computer data related to
LATEST CHIKA;

6 Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation vs. Victor A. Domingo, G.R. No. 170341, 05

July 2017.
7 Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation vs. Victor A. Domingo, G.R. No. 170341, 05

July 2017.

Page 11 of 27
 e. To secure a computer system or computer data
storage medium;
f. To make and retain a copy of those computer data
secured;
g. To maintain the integrity of the relevant stored
computer data;
h. To conduct forensic analysis or examination of the
computer data storage medium; and
i. To render inaccessible or remove those computer
data in the accessed computer or computer and
communications network.

52. Once the owner/s, author/s, or person/s responsible

in the creation and management of LATEST CHIKA and the
libelous videos is/are identified, I will pursue legal action
against him/her/them, and I intend to use the data collected
and preserved as evidence.

AS REGARDS THE LIABILITY OF GOOGLE

53. Google is the owner and service provider of YouTube.

Ms. BERNADETTE NACARIO is Google Philippine’s country
Manager who has the responsibility to oversee the operations of
the whole company.

54. In 2006, Google acquired YouTube in the amount of

$1.65B.8 According to the latest version of YouTube’s Terms of
Service, the entity providing the Service (or the Service Provider
of YouTube) is Google LLC.9 It is a company operating under the
laws of Delaware, located at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway,
Mountain View, CA 94043.10

55. While being an international company, Google has

expanded to the Philippines. Google officially launched its first
Google Philippine office last January 23, 2013 in Manila.11
Currently, it has two offices in Bonifacio Global City in Taguig.12

56. Despite being an international corporation, Google

LLC may still be held liable under Philippine laws since it is a
foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines. According
8
Google buys YouTube for $1.65 billion, available at https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna15196982 (last
accessed Jul. 2, 2021).
9
Terms or Service, available at https://www.youtube.com/t/terms (last accessed Jul. 2, 2021).
10
Id.
11
Victor, Barreiro Jr., Google Opens Philippine Office, available at
https://www.rappler.com/technology/internet-culture/google-opens-philippine-office (last accessed Jul. 2,
2021).
12
Google expands in PH, opens new office in Taguig, available at https://news.abs-
cbn.com/business/11/09/18/google-expands-in-ph-opens-new-office-in-taguig (last accessed Jul. 2, 2021).

Page 12 of 27
to the Foreign Investment Act of 1991, “doing business”
includes soliciting orders, service contracts, opening offices,
whether called "liaison" offices or branches.13 As ruled in the
case of Steelcase, Inc. vs. Design International Selections, Inc,
foreign corporations doing business in the Philippines may be
sued or proceeded against before Philippine courts or
administrative tribunals on any valid cause of action recognized
under Philippine laws.14 Hence, as a foreign corporation doing
business in the Philippines, the Philippine courts have
jurisdiction over Google.

57. When submitting defamatory complaints regarding a

video uploaded on YouTube, the complainant or his/her
authorized legal representative is directed to submit a form to
Google’s Google Help site through the link:
https://support.google.com/youtube/contact/defamation_coc
omplai.15

58. The process of reporting defamatory videos are as

follows:

a) Section 1: Complainant’s Info

1. Country/region of dispute
2. Your full legal name
3. Your YouTube channel, if you have one
4. Are you acting on behalf of yourself or a client?
5. Your contact Info
b) Section 2: Details of your complaint. For each video
concerned, please identify:
1. Video URL
2. The exact statements in the video or metadata
that you allege are defamatory. Statements
such as "the whole video" are invalid.
c) Section 3: Legal Affirmations
1. You must agree to and include the following
statement: "I declare that the information in
this notice is true and complete."
2. Your signature

59. A total of 82 videos have been reported to be

defamatory against Sen. Pangilinan and his family. The reports
contain the time stamps, exact defamatory statements (in
13
An Act to Promote Foreign Investments, Prescribe the Procedures for Registering Enterprises Doing
Business in the Philippines, and for Other Purposes [Foreign Investment Act of 1991], Republic Act No.
7042, § 3 (d) (1991).
14
Steelcase, Inc. vs. Design International Selections, Inc., 670 SCRA 64, 72 (2012).
15
Defamation, available at https://support.google.com/youtube/contact/defamation_complaint (last
accessed Jul. 2, 2021).

Page 13 of 27
Filipino) and the legal basis on why such statements are in
violation of the defamatory law in the Philippines. The common
statements raised by the defamatory reports are Sharon
Cuneta-Pangilinan committing adultery by having an illicit
affair with another man, and Sen. Pangilinan committing acts
of violence (physical assault) against his wife which is in
violation of the Violence Against Women and Children Act. As
explained in the complaint to Google, under Philippine laws, a
matter is defamatory when it imputes a crime, vice, defect, or
any act, or omission, condition, status or circumstance, tending
to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt to a person.16

36.1. A copy of the screenshot of one of the defamatory

reports submitted is attached as Annex “H”.

60. Out of the 82 videos reported, none were found to be

defamatory by Google. Yet, YouTube’s defamation policy defines
defamation in general as any untrue statement that is harmful
to someone's reputation or causes someone to be shunned or
avoided.17 YouTube’s definition of defamation is even similar to
the definition under Philippine law. Currently, 54 videos have
yet to be decided on while the other 28 have been rejected. In
its decision, YouTube responded with a uniform message stated
as follows:

“Hello,

We’ve reviewed your request, and we're

unable to determine the merits of your
defamation claim. Therefore, we will not
remove the content under our defamation
policy.

We suggest that you address your

concerns directly with the uploader of the
content in question. Some users list ways
they can be contacted in their channel.
Learn more about how to contact other
users here

If you choose to pursue legal action

against the content creator, note that we

16
An Act Revising the Penal Code and Other Penal Laws [The Revised Penal Code], Act No. 3815, art.
353 (1930).
17
Defamation, available at
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6154230?co=GENIE.CountryCode%3DPhilippines&hl=en#zip
py=%2Cif-you-cant-find-your-country-in-the-drop-down-above (last accessed Jul. 2, 2021).

Page 14 of 27
 may be prepared to comply with an order
requiring the content creator to remove
the posting in question.

Regards,
The YouTube Legal Support Team”

36.2. A copy of the screenshot of Sharon’s Instagram live

video is attached as Annex “I”.

61. From the defamatory complaints submitted, Google,

as a service provider, has knowledge of the existence of the
defamatory videos, and it still refused to remove such videos
despite being informed of its defamatory nature which is in
violation of the Philippine laws and even YouTube’s own
Community Guidelines and its Policy, Safety and Copyright
Policies. Being informed that the posting of the video on
YouTube’s platform is unlawful, Google, as the service provider,
should have taken down the said videos.

62. As explained by the court in the case of Disini, Jr. v.

Secretary of Justice, in the cyberworld there are many actors
and one of them is the service provider.18 However, the Supreme
Court has also previously ruled that corporations cannot be
held criminally liable under Philippine jurisdiction since at this
time there is no law relating to the practice and procedure in
criminal actions whereby a corporation may be brought to court
to be proceeded against criminally.19

63. Last November 26, 2019 Google announced the

appointment of MS. BERNADETTE NACARIO as the new
country Manager for its Philippine headquarters.20 As country
Manager her task is to manage the company’s day-to-day
operations and developing an overall growth strategy for the
business.21 She is also tasked to work with customers and
market influencers to establish long-term visions for
advertisers, publishers and partners.22 Being the Google
country Manager in the Philippines means she is the primary
advocate of the country, and she shares the opportunities and
challenges of the market.23
18
Disini , Jr. v. Secretary of Justice , 716 SCRA 237 (2014).
19
West Coast Life Ins. Co. v. Hurd, 27 Phil. 401 (1914).
20
Google Philippines announces new country director, available at
https://www.rappler.com/technology/google-philippines-country-head-bernadette-nacario (last accessed
Jul. 1, 2021).
21
Id.
22
Google begins hunt for new Philippine Country Manager, available at https://www.marketing-
interactive.com/google-hire-new-country-manager-ph (last accessed Jul. 2, 2021).
23
Id.

Page 15 of 27
 64. MS. BERNADETTE NACARIO was already appointed
as country Manager when the said videos were posted. The
videos were uploaded on YouTube during the month of May
2021. As the country Manager, MS. BERNADETTE NACARIO
had the duty to oversee the day-to-day functions of the
company. As such, she should’ve ensured that YouTube
maintains to uphold its Community Guidelines and its Policy,
Safety and Copyright Policies.24 The Community Guidelines are
designed to ensure that the YouTube community stays
protected and it enumerates which content are allowed and not
allowed in the platform.25 One type of content that are not
allowed on YouTube are content or behavior intended to harass,
threaten or bully others.26

65. The videos reported to Google are on its face

defamatory since it imputes the crime of adultery to Sharon
Cuneta-Pangilinan and the act of committing physical assault
against his wife to Sen. Pangilinan which is in violation of the
VAWC law. These allegations are not only false, but also
tarnishes the reputation of the people involved in the videos.
These are unlawful under the Philippine laws, and is even
against the community guidelines and policies of YouTube on
defamation. Despite the numerous reports, the videos were still
found unmeritorious.

66. As country Manager, MS. BERNADETTE NACARIO

should ensure that the employees exercise the necessary
diligence in ascertaining the existence of defamatory videos and
the removal of such in order to maintain the Community
Guidelines and its Policy, Safety and Copyright Policies.
Moreover, service providers have the obligation to perform such
other duties as may be necessary and proper to carry into effect
the provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.27
Google should have ensured that cyberlibel was not being
committed on YouTube’s platform, and it should have removed
the defamatory videos attacking Sen. Pangilinan and his family.

67. Given the novelty of the case regarding the liability of

service providers, a case decided by the court of Ireland may be
24
Terms of Service, available at https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms (last accessed Jul. 2,
2021).
25
Community Guidelines, available at https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/policies/community-
guidelines/#community-guidelines (last accessed Jun. 29, 2021).
26
Harassment and Cyberbullying Policies, available at
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802268?hl=en&ref_topic=9282436 (last accessed Jul. 2,
2021).
27
Rules and Regulations Implementing Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, Republic Act No. 10175, § 30
(j) (2015).

Page 16 of 27
taken into consideration. In this case the court of Ireland ruled
Google as the owner of YouTube is a necessary/proper party in
libel case since it failed to remove the video containing, vile and
scurrilous allegations made against a public official. To allow
them to remain available for downloading for a period of 23 days
from notification was, on the face of it, simply not good enough.
The court concluded that Google should have acted more swiftly
given the serious and alarming nature of the libel.28

68. I am executing this Complaint-Affidavit to attest to

the truth of the foregoing facts and for the prosecution of
owner/s, author/s, or person/s responsible in the creation and
management of LATEST CHIKA and the libelous videos
pursuant to Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175, also
known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, in relation to
Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and for the
prosecution of MS. BERNADETTE NACARIO as country
Manager of Google Philippines which is the service provider of
YouTube pursuant to Section 20(b)(1) and Section 30(j) of the
same law.

To the truth of the foregoing, we have signed this

Complaint-Affidavit on ______________ in _______________.

FRANCIS PANCRATIUS N. PANGILINAN

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this

_________________ at ________________. Affiant showed to me his
_________________________ as his competent evidence of identity.
I hereby certify that I have examined the Affiant and that I am
fully satisfied that he has voluntarily executed and understood
the contents of his Complaint-Affidavit.

NOTARY PUBLIC/ADMINISTERING OFFICER

28
Galloway v Frazer, Google Inc t/a YouTube and others (2016) NIQB 7.

Page 17 of 27
ANNEX “A”

ANNEX “A-1”

Page 18 of 27
ANNEX “B”

ANNEX “B-1”

Page 19 of 27
ANNEX “C”

ANNEX “C-1”

Page 20 of 27
ANNEX “D”

ANNEX “D-1”

Page 21 of 27
ANNEX “E”

ANNEX “E-1”

Page 22 of 27
ANNEX “F”

ANNEX “F-1”

Page 23 of 27
ANNEX “G”

Page 24 of 27
ANNEX “H”

Page 25 of 27
Page 26 of 27
ANNEX “I”

Page 27 of 27