Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
National Prosecution Service
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
3 Floor, DOJ Building, D.A. Compound, Guadalupe
rd

RENANTE GONZALES & ANNABELLE NPS DOC. NO. VII-09—INV-21B-

D. PEPINO, 00187
Complainants,
-versus- For: Violation of Art. 355 of the
  Revised Penal Code, as
RICHARD NAVAJA, amended
                                      Respondent.
       
X––––––––––––––––––––X

SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(for the Respondent)
 
RESPONDENT, thru the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully states that:

TIMELINESS OF FILING THIS MOTION

The respondent received the April 12, 2021 Resolution of the Office of the City
Prosecutor on August 20, 2021. The tenth (10 th) day falls on August 30, 2021 a
Sunday, hence, today, August 31, 2021 was the last day to file the Motion for
Reconsideration. The respondent most respectfully files this Supplemental Motion for
Reconsideration praying that the Honorable Office considers _____ in the interest of
justice.

ADDITIONAL ERROR ASSIGNED AND DISCUSSION

With due respect, this Honorable Court committed the following grave error in its
findings of facts and law:

THIS HONORABLE OFFICE GRAVELY ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THAT IN

CYBER LIBEL THE ELEMENT OF THAT THE IMPUTATION WAS DONE THROUGH

1
THE USE OF A COMPUTER SYSTEM OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR MEANS WHICH
MAYBE DEVISED IN THE FUTURE (Sec. 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175) IS ABSENT.

Even in their Complaint, the complainants stated they saw the Bombo Radio interview
of the respondent in the Facebook of Bombo Radio or someone else’s Facebook.

In the Counter-Affidavit of respondent Richard Navaja, he stated that he called using his
landline and the Bombo Radio scheduled his interview and was the one who called him
up for the interview. It was Bombo Radio that actually posted the interview in its
Facebook.

In _______,

In the Resolution, the

The imputation was done through the use of a computer system or any other
similar means which may be devised in the future.

Elements of Cyber Libel

The following are the elements of cyber libel, based on Section 4(c)(4) of
R.A. 10175, in relation to Articles 353 and 355 of the Revised Penal Code:

a. There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or

imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance.

b. The imputation must be made publicly, which requires that at least one
other person must have seen the libelous post, in addition to the author and
the person defamed or alluded to in the post.

2
c. The imputation must be malicious, which means that the author of
the libelous post made such post with knowledge that it was false, or
with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity thereof.

d. The imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one

who is dead, which requires that the post must identify the person
defamed, or at the very least, the person defamed is identifiable by a third
person.

e. The imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of

the person defamed. (Reyes, Luis B., Revised Penal Code, Fifteenth
Edition, 2001, page 932.)

f. The imputation was done through the use of a computer system or

any other similar means which may be devised in the future. (Sec. 4(c)
(4) of R.A. 10175)

As explained in his Counter-Affidavit, he called the Bombo Radio

3
 COMPLAINANT IS NOT AN ORDINARY PERSON BUT A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE
BEING A PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHER AND FAILING TO CONSIDER
THAT DEFAMATORY PUBLICATIONS AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICIAL PASS
THROUGH A DIFFERENT STANDARD OF “ACTUAL MALICE” UNDER THE NEW
YORK TIMES TEST WHICH IS APPLIED AND ACCEPTED BY THE SUPREME
COURT. THERE WAS NO MALICE.

That these words of the respondent considering that the complainant is a public school
teachers are not malicious:

ASA MNG SALN ANA? IPAKITA KA NA? - the complainant being is not malicious.

KAY KANANG BALAY NGA 5 MILLION, DILI MAK TUKOD ANG MAESTRA ANA
OI… KINSAY NAGPATUKOD? NAG GASTO – these are not malicious because the
complainant is a public employee.

“AKO SIR, SA AKONG NAHIBAW-AN, HINOON. AKO DI KO KAINONG NG AMINYO

BA PERO MAHIBONG….”- these are not malicous within the purview of the New York
Times Test which has been applied in our jurisprudence by the Supreme Court.

That the complainant is a public elementary school teacher cannot be denied. The
principal of her school even endorsed the request of the respondent to get a copy of the
complainant’s SALN to the DepEd.

376 US 254 (1976)

Absence of “actual malice” under the New York Times test. Defamatory

publications against public officials pass through a different standard of “actual malice.”
Under the test set by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of New York Times v.
Sullivan,

St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 731 (1961)

“Actual malice” means the defendant made the statement with knowledge that it was
false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. “Reckless disregard of
what is false or not” signifies that the defendant entertains serious doubt as to the truth
of the publication

Garrison v. Lousiana, 379 U.S 74 (1964); Borjal v. CA, supra note 13, at 29

The possesses a high degree of awareness of their probable falsity.

In the Bombo Radio interview, the respondent CLEARLY stated E- CHECK ANG SALN
(to check the SALN of the complainant).

Atty. Rommel Rosito, the undersigned counsel even filed a case against the DepEd
employees for not revealing the SALN of the complainant which is clearly a public
document.

4
Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 501 US 496 (1991)

Actual malice under the New York Times standard should not be confused with the
concept of malice as an evil intent or a motive arising from spite or ill will.

St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 US 727 (1968)

Actual malice is a subjective standard testing the publisher’s good-faith belief in the
truth of his statements.

Bose v. Consumers Union, 466 US 485 (1984)

The plaintiff must demonstrate that the author realized that his statement was false

Masson v. New Yorker Magazine

 in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication, or acted with a high
degree of awareness of probable falsity

50 Am Jur 2d Libel and Slander 362

Actual malice does not incorporate mere suspicions or what a reporter should have
known; it requires that the reporter actually knew that the information on which the
article was based was false or the reporter acted with such disregard for the truth as to
rise to the level of recklessness. Actual malice cannot be imputed merely because the
information turns out to be false. An erroneous interpretation of facts does not meet the
standard of actual malice

Greenbelt Publishing Association, Inc. v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (1971); Gertz v.

Robert Welch, Inc.

The New York Times standard of “actual malice” applies as well to libel actions filed by
public figures, including persons who are public figures for all purposes and those who
become public figures for a limited range of issues

The ethical standard for teachers emphasizes that the teacher has a
responsibility to the country, to her community. She is a public figure.

Borjal v. CA, supra note 13, at 25-26, citing NAACP v. Button, 371 US 415 (1963).
“The rationale for the New York Times test revolves around the need for free
debate on public

5
The raison d’etre for the New York Times doctrine is that to require critics of official
conduct to guarantee the truth of all their factual assertions on pain of libel judgments
would lead to self-censorship, since would-be critics would be deterred from voicing out
their criticisms even if such were believed to be true, or were in fact true, because of
doubt whether it could be proved or because of fear of the expense of having to prove it.

Criticisms such as those stated by the respondent must be allowed if our society
is to guide and see to it that public employees like the complaint be cautious in
their conduct even in avoiding suspicions of immorality and corruption.

Lopez v. CA, 34 SCRA 116 (1970); Mercado v. CFI of Rizal, 116 SCRA 93 (1982);
Babst v. National Intelligence Board, 132 SCRA 316, 325 (1984); Borjal v. CA,

The New York Times ruling has been adopted in our jurisprudence. 30

MOREOVER, the ethical standards for teachers have a very high standard to
check and guide the conduct of teachers. In the PRC case filed by the
respondent against the complaint:

Annabelle violated the following provisions of the Code of Ethical Standards for
Professional Teachers by conducting herself in a most dishonorable, undignified
manner specially that a public school teacher is placed in a pedestal, up there in a
place of respect and trust and expected to be a role model for everyone more so for
children; her omission to consider the welfare of the people in her community
revealing a character flaw, a sheer lack of empathy, respect, courtesy, decency that
hurt the teaching profession and the role model image of teachers. :

Under ARTICLE II – THE TEACHER AND THE STATE: “xxxxx

(3) In the interest of the State and of the Filipino people as much as
of his own, every teacher must be physically, mentally and morally
fit. xxxxx.” (emphasis supplied)

Under ARTICLE III – THE TEACHER AND THE COMMUNITY xxxxx

“Section 3. Every teacher shall merit reasonable social recognition

for which purpose he shall behave with honor and dignity at all
times, and refrain for such activities as gambling, smoking,
drunkenness, and other excesses, much less illicit relations.

Section 4. Every teacher shall live for and with the community
and shall therefore, study and understand local customs and
traditions in order to have sympathetic attitude, therefore refrain
from disparaging the community. xxxxx

6
 Section 6. Every teacher is intellectual leader in the community,
especially in the barangay and shall welcome the opportunity to
provide such leadership when needed, to extend counseling
services, as appropriate, and to actively be involved in matters
affecting the welfare of the people.

Section 7. Every teacher shall maintain harmonious and

pleasant personal and official relations with other professionals,
with government officials, and with the people, individually or
collectively.(emphasis supplied) xxxxx”

ARTICLE XI – THE TEACHER AS A PERSON

“Section 1. A teacher is, above all. a human being endowed with
life for which it is the highest obligation to live with dignity at all
times whether in school, in the home, or elsewhere.

Section 2. A teacher shall place premium upon self-discipline as

the primary principles of personal behavior in all relationships
with others and in all situations.

Section 3. A teacher shall maintain at all times a dignified

personality which could serve as a model worthy of emulation
by learners, peers and all others. xxxxx”

Annabelle is an unmarried public school teachers in her 40’s who has appeared to her
community to be living in, or having a lover-boyfriend who has lived in or visited her in
the 3-storey building every now and then for around 15 years. Why haven’t they
married? Is the man married that is why they are not married? The suspicion of
immorality public school teacher Annabelle herself has created and allowed
cannot be avoided because of the high regard the community has placed on
teachers and such suspicion need to be cleared as it hurts the teaching profession and
the role model image especially to the children that a teacher like her must uphold.

There is also the suspicion and opinion on the matter of her owning an expensive 3-
storey building and lot believed by the neighbors to be hers. She never denied that
the property is hers. By just relying on the income as a public teacher, it is hardly
believable that she could afford to build the expensive house and lot. We in the
neighborhood have not known if she has had any other source of income. Any
suspicion of accumulation of wealth and where it came from cannot be regarded as
illegal as she is a public employee having the duty to reveal publicly her wealth and the
source of her wealth.

7
Atty. Rommel R. Rosito, filed a case against the Department of Education lawyer and
administrative personnel who refused to make available her current Statement of
Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth when requested within reasonable office hours

Based on our initial verification, the Cebu City Assessor’s Office does not have any tax
declaration covering any property under her name. The 3-storey building is located in
Sitio Mangga, Punta Princesa, Cebu City, within the jurisdiction of the Cebu City
Assessor’s Office.

A teacher is regarded most respectfully that it is required of her to avoid the appearance
of immorality or suspicion of immorality and decency and that they must have a high
standard of integrity and honesty.

The pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Santos vs. National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), G.R. No. 115795 dated March 06, 1998 showing principles to
inspire, guide and the standards to uphold in this most noble and revered profession
TEACHING. xxxxx

“Consequently, it is but stating the obvious to assert that

teachers must adhere to the exacting standards of morality
and decency, xxx.

“Accordingly, teachers must abide by a standard of personal conduct which not only
proscribes the commission of immoral acts, but also prohibits behavior creating a
suspicion of immorality because of the harmful impression it might have on the
students. Likewise, they must observe a high standard of integrity and honesty. ”

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable

Office to reverse, withdraw its recommendation of the filingof Information for Cylver
Libel filed by Annabelle D. Pepino and the dismissal of her complaint against the
respondent. Other reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Cebu City, Philippines, August 31, 2021

ATTY. ROMMEL R. ROSITO, CPA, MM

Counsel for the Respondent
Fairview Homes, Sabellano St.
Basak, Pardo, Cebu City
SC Roll of Attorneys No. 62755 - May 6, 2014
IBP AR No. 35013600 for 2021 on 11/26/2020 Cebu City Chapter
PTR No. CEB 2220702 for 2021 on 11/06/2020 Cebu City
MCLE Compliance No. VI – 0000897 issued Oct. 25, 2016
for compliance period ending April 2022

8
 VERIFICATION

I, RICHARD NAVAJA, Filipino, of legal age and residing in corner Camomot

Franza Road and Katipunan Street, Labangon, Cebu City, Philippines, after having
been duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state THAT:

1. I am the respondent in the above above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration,
have read the contents, the foregoing allegations are true and correct based on our
personal knowledge and based on authentic documents;
3. I have meritorious causes and grounds and the foregoing Motion for
Reconsideration is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase
the cost of litigation, and
4. The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support after reasonable
opportunity for discovery;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we hereunto signed this August 31, 2021 in Cebu City,
Philippines.

RICHARD NAVAJA
Respondent

G01-88-097862

To expire 9/17/2026

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 31ST of August 2021 in Cebu

City, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me competent evidence of his identity, the details
of which are indicated below his name above.

EXPLANATION

Copy of this pleading was sent to the opposing counsel through registered mail for lack
of personnel to effect personal service.

9
ANNABELLE PEPINO & RENANTE GONZALES
Complainants
Sitio Mangga, Barangay Punta Princesa
Cebu City, Philippines

10