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, STARLET, 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. STARLET is a YouTube channel that can be accessed

through the following URL or link:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWSjQ9OHMlWXghoOq
J4tkYw/featured. Based on the information on its channel,
STARLET joined YouTube on 02 December 2020.

5. On 20 May 2021, STARLET authored and posted on

its YouTube channel a video entitled, “Kiko Pangilinan,
NAGMAKAAWA kay Sharon Cuneta na huwag ng ituloy ang
KASONG isinampa sa kanya…” The video may be accessed
through the following URL or link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=hglEWs42l
Qk. 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: “Patawarin mo ako Sharon! Hindi ko
sinasadya…”

Page 1 of 25
 7. Said video contained statements that I physically
hurt or abused my wife, Sharon Cuneta-Pangilinan, and that
she and our daughter, KC, filed a case against me for physical
injuries. An excerpt of the video is quoted below:

“Kiko Pangilinan nagmakaawa kay Sharon

Cuneta na huwag nang ituloy ang kasong
isinampa sa kanya. Marami ang lumabas
na samu’t saring balita ukol sa pangyayari
sa pagsasama ng mag-asawang Sharon at
Kiko. xxx Naging laman din ng balita ang
pang-aabuso umano ni Kiko kay Sharon
ang dahilan, sa selos kaya nauwi ito sa
pisikal na pananakit sa asawang si
Sharon. Ang ginawang ito ni Kiko kay
Sharon ang nag-iwan ng matinding
pinsala sa mata ng asawang si Sharon.
Dala ng matinding pananakit ni Kiko kay
Sharon kaya muntik na itong mabulag.
Ayon sa nakalap naming impormasyon,
nagsampa na umano ng kaso ang mag-
inang Sharon at KC Concepcion laban kay
Kiko Pangilinan. Hindi na lubos kayanin
ni Sharon ang ginawang pananakit ni Kiko
sa kanya kung kaya ninais na ni Sharon
Cuneta na ireklamo ang asawang si Kiko.
Sa pagsasampa ng kaso ng mag-inang
Sharon at KC, hindi napigilan ni Kiko
Pangilinan ang mapaiyak dahil sa hindi
nito lubos akalain na irereklamo siya ng
asawang si Sharon. Gayong hindi daw
umano sinasadya ni Kiko ang ginawa niya
kay Sharon. Nagmakaawa, humingi ng
kapatawaran, at humingi ng pangalawang
pagkakataon si Kiko kay Sharon .
Nangako si Kiko na hindi na niya
pagbubuhatan pa ng kamay si Sharon at
aayusin nila ang problema ni Sharon nang
maayos, walang sakitan, at higit sa lahat
ibabalik umano muli ni Kiko ang tiwala ng
asawang si Sharon sa kanya.”

8. As of 14 June 2021, said video has 172,449 views.

9. On 22 May 2021, STARLET authored and posted on

its YouTube channel a video entitled, “Buking Na! Sharon
Cuneta at Marco Gumabao Spotted na MAGKASAMA sa

Page 2 of 25
ibang Bansa…” The video may be accessed through the
following URL or link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fws2Ihrl4Oo&t=49s. 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: “Hindi kana nahiya sa mga anak mo!
Nakakadiri ka Sharon!”

11. Said video also contained statements that I

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

“Buking na! Sharon Cuneta at Marco

Gumabao spotted na magkasama sa ibang
bansa. Isa pa ding malaking palaisipan sa
mga fans ni Megastar Sharon Cuneta ang
ginawa nitong pag-alis kamakailan nang
patungong ibang bansa. Unang nagsimula
ang madaming katanungan ng mga
netizens kung bakit hindi kasama ang
pamilya at mas pinili ni Sharon
magtungong mag-isa papuntang ibang
bansa. Ayon kay Sharon Cuneta sa isang
interview ay kinailangan niya itong gawin
upang hanapin pansamantala ang
kanyang sarili at umuwi itong muli.
Naging palaisipan na ang desisyon niyang
ito sa kanyang mga tagahanga sa pahayag
na ito ng aktres at singer. Maraming
ispekulasyon ngayon ang naglalabasan
patungkol umano sa pag-iwan ni Sharon
sa kanyang asawa at mga anak. Ayon sa
ilan ay baka umano may ibang lalaki na si
Sharon at kasama niya itong lumipad
patungong ibang bansa. Ayon sa aming
reliable source ay mag-isang lumipad si
Sharon papuntang ibang bansa ngunit
ang kanyang kasama ay humiwalay sa
kanya ng flight upang makasigurado na
walang ibang makakakita sa mga ito at
upang hindi sila pag-usapan. Sadyang
matatalas ang mata ng ibang netizens.
Ayon sa ilang saksi, pagbaba umano ni
Megastar ay may lalaki agad na
sumalubong sa kanya. Naka-face mask,

Page 3 of 25
 naka-jacket umano ang lalaki kaya di nila
ito nakilala. Ito ang may nagpaigting sa
haka-haka ng ilan na baka may lalaki
talaga daw umano si Sharon Cuneta.
Marahil ito na rin ang naging dahilan ng
asawa ni Sharon na si Kiko Pangilinan
upang saktan ito ng pisikal na
kamuntikan nang ikamatay ni
Megastar. Samantala ang ilang netizens
ay pinapangalanan na kung sino ang
lalaking kasama ni Sharon. Ayon sa mga
ito, di umano malabo na si Marco
Gumabao ang kasama ni Sharon sa ibang
bansa. Matatandaan nitong Hulyo ay
nagkalapit nang husto sa kanilang
pinagtambalang pelikula na The
Revirginized ang dalawang ito.” (Emphasis
and underscoring supplied.)

12. As of 14 June 2021, said video has already garnered

312,275 views.

13. Also on 22 May 2021, STARLET authored and posted

on its YouTube channel a video entitled, “Nagkainitan! Kiko
Pangilinan SINUGOD si Marco Gumabao! Sharon Cuneta
NAPAAMIN!” The video may be accessed through the following
URL or link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MRguLyxWhg. 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: “Marco?! Bakit naman ASAWA ko pa! Hindi
mo ba nakikita! Parang INA mo nayan!”

15. Said video contained statements that I physically

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

“xxx Ayon sa netizens, mukhang ang ibig

ipahiwatig ni Sharon Cuneta ay
makakalaya na siya sa kanyang asawa sa
mga sakit na ibinibigay sa kanya ni Kiko.
Ito ay dahil na rin sa ilang beses na
pananakit ni Kiko sa asawang si Sharon
na muntik na itong ikamatay. Sa pag-
alis ni Sharon ng bansa, kumalat naman

Page 4 of 25
 ang mga larawan kung saan magkasama
at magkayakap sina Sharon at Marco
Gumabao. Marami ang nagulat sa
naglabasan na mga larawan ng mga ito.
Isa sa pinakalubos-lubos ang pagkagalit
sa mga larawang naglabasan sa social
media ang asawa ni Sharon na si Kiko
Pangilinan. Halos gumuho ang mundo ni
Kiko nang malaman na kaya pala umalis
ng bansa ang asawa ay para makasama si
Marco Gumabao. Ayon kay Kiko,
kinasusuklaman umano nito ang asawang
si Sharon dahil sa ginawa nitong
panloloko sa kanya.” (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied.)

16. As of 14 June 2021, said video garnered 75,785

views.

17. On 24 May 2021, STARLET again authored and

posted on its YouTube channel a video entitled, “Lagot Na!
Kiko Pangilinan NAGSAMPA NG KASI laban kina Sharon
Cuneta at Marco Gumabao” The video may be accessed
through the following URL or link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PJ7H9am9sU. 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: “Tingnan natin kung saan kayo pupulutin!
Ginusto nyo yan magsama kayo sa kULUNGAN!”

19. Said video also contained statements that I

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

“Lagot na! Kiko Pangilinan nagsampa ng

kaso laban sa asawa nitong si Sharon
Cuneta at sa lalaki nitong si Marco
Gumabao. Hindi pa rin mamatay ang isyu
sa pagitan ni Kiko Pangilinan at Sharon
Cuneta. Kamakailan nga ay napabalita
ang pananakit na pisikal ni Kiko
Pangilinan sa asawa nito na si Sharon
Cuneta. Ayon sa balita ay masyado
umanong seloso itong si Kiko. Lalo na

Page 5 of 25
 sa tuwing magkakaroon ng proyekto
itong si Megastar at sa tuwing mayroon
itong leading man. Ayon sa aming
nakalap na impormasyon ay nasaktan
nang sobra ni Kiko si Sharon na
humantong na nga sa pagka-ospital ni
Sharon dahil na nga sa muntikan nang
mabulag si Megastar Sharon. Dahil sa
pangyayaring ito, di matanggap ng
panganay na anak ni Sharon na si KC
Concepcion ang sinapit ng kanyang ina sa
kamay ng kanyang stepfather at
nagdesisyong magsampa ng kaso laban
kay Kiko. Samantala habang umuusad
ang kaso ay usap-usapan naman sa
buong social media ang pagkakaroon ni
Sharon ng lalaki. Nagsimula ito nang
magtungo si Megastar sa US at maraming
nakakita rito na may kasamang lalaking
mas bata sa kanya. Ispekulasyon ng
karamihan na si Marco Gumabao umano
ang kasama nito ni Sharon dahil sa nga sa
kamakailan lang ay naugnay si Marco kay
Sharon dahil na nga sa pagtatambalan ng
mga ito sa isang pelikula. Samantala labis
labis umano ngayon ang nararamdamang
sakit nito dahil sa ginawang ito ng
kanyang asawa. Inaamin naman daw niya
na napagbuhatan niya ng kamay si
Sharon dahil nalaman niya na may lalaki
ang kanyang asawa. May karapatan din
naman umano siyang maghinanakit at
magalit sa asawa dahil sa ginagawa nito
sa kanya. Ngunit ang panlalaki at iwan
silang mag-aama ay napakasakit umano
sa kanya lalong lalo na sa kanilang mga
anak. Hiling naman ni Kiko ay sana
matauhan na si Sharon at maisipan na na
bumalik na sa kanila nang hindi na
umabot pa sa korte ang gusot na ginawa
ng asawa niyang si Sharon.” (Emphasis
and underscoring supplied.)

20. As of 14 June 2021, said video already has 93,631

views.

Page 6 of 25
 21. The videos authored and posted by STARLET 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.

22. 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.

23. 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,
STARLET and the libelous videos posted therein.

24. 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.”

25. 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

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

27. 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.
1Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation vs. Victor A. Domingo, G.R. No. 170341, 05
July 2017.

Page 7 of 25
 28. 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.”

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

case.

30. 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

31. 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:

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 25
 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.

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. 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
the crowd. This turns the thumbnail into
advertising space in the YouTube search.”5
(Emphases and underscoring supplied.)

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

June 2021).
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 9 of 25
 35. Moreover, as further evidence of malice, the owner/s,
author/s, or person/s responsible in the creation and
management of STARLET 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.

36. 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, STARLET still did not take down the
libelous videos. As of 14 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.

37. 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.”

37.1 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.

37.2 A copy of the screenshot of Sharon’s Instagram

live video is attached as Annex “E”.

38. 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
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.

6Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation vs. Victor A. Domingo, G.R. No. 170341, 05
July 2017.

Page 10 of 25
 39. The videos were posted or published through
STARLET’s YouTube channel, which is easily accessible to and
made available to the general public. In fact, the videos already
garnered thousands of views.

40. 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

41. 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.

42. 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.

43. 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 STARLET 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 STARLET YouTube video and

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

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

Page 11 of 25
 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.

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

in the creation and management of STARLET 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

45. 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.

46. 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

47. 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

48. 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
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,
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).
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).

Page 12 of 25
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.

49. 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

50. 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

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

defamatory against Sen. Pangilinan and his family. The reports
contain the time stamp, exact defamatory statement (in 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

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 25
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

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

reports submitted is attached as Annex “F”.

52. 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
may be prepared to comply with an order
requiring the content creator to remove
the posting in question.

Regards,
The YouTube Legal Support Team”

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 25
 36.1. A copy of the screenshot of Sharon’s Instagram live
video is attached as Annex “G”.

53. 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.

54. 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

55. 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

56. 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
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 25
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

57. 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.

58. 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.

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

service providers, a case decided by the court of Ireland may be
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
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 25
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

60. 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 STARLET 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 25
ANNEX “A”

ANNEX “A-1”

Page 18 of 25
ANNEX “B”

ANNEX “B-1”

Page 19 of 25
ANNEX “C”

ANNEX “C-1”

Page 20 of 25
ANNEX “D”

ANNEX “D-1”

Page 21 of 25
ANNEX “E”

ANNEX “F”

Page 22 of 25
Page 23 of 25
Page 24 of 25
ANNEX “G”

Page 25 of 25