Libel raps vs. Yu, lawyer: Respondents contend filing of case beyond fiscal's role

The respondents in the libel case filed by assistant prosecutor Mary Ann Castro before the Regional Trial Court yesterday filed a supplemental motion to quash contending that the filing of the case was beyond the functions of the regional state prosecutor.

Lawyer Vicente Fernandez II and businessman Nanak Yu said assistant regional state prosecutor Vicente Mañalac recommended the filing of the information of the crime of libel against them but based his resolution only upon an earlier superseded resolution of prosecutor Dixon Fuentes.

They invoked the additional ground that Mañalac has "no authority" in filing the information because doing such should be "upon finding of probable cause after the usual preliminary investigation."

"Filing information in court is not the function of the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor, which is tasked to pass upon appeals from the office of the city prosecutor and provincial prosecutors," said Fernandez and Yu.

Their third argument to quash the case was that the filing of the case against them "is not a normal thing that happens in government offices" and thus "should be corrected" to show that not all people in the judiciary "are involved in any kind of shenanigans."

In the first motion to quash, Fernandez and Yu argued that the facts "do not constitute and offense" because their statements, which Castro claimed libelous, were deemed privileged communication. Castro opposed this motion saying it should be tried before the court where the prosecution could prove its contention that the statements were libelous. The alleged libelous statements of the respondents stated that Castro was a "congenital liar" and that she was like a "termagant fish vendor."

These statements were contained in their counter-affidavits over a case of malicious mischief Castro filed against Yu, and his brother Jake, at the Municipal Trial Court in Cities-branch 4.

Yu and Fernandez said the MTCC has already acquired jurisdiction over the still pending malicious mischief case so "it has the sole authority to determine" whether the statements are relevant, pertinent, or material to the case to make these privileged communications and not libelous.