Saavedra asks prosecutor’s office to dismiss libel case

Businessman Crisologo Saavedra has asked the Cebu City Prosecutor’s Office to dismiss the libel case that Governor Gwendolyn Garcia has filed against him for lack of merit.

Saavedra assailed the tape recording of his radio interview in which he accused Garcia of misrepresenting her accounting of the expenses of the Cebu International Convention Center.

The tape recording of Saavedra’s interview with Leo Lastimosa on June 5, in which he allegedly accused Garcia of being corrupt, abusive and dictator, was made the basis by the governor to file the libel case against him.

Garcia said Saavedra’s unfounded and malicious accusation has tarnished her reputation as a person and public official.

But Saavedra said there are seven pre-requisites that must be established before a tape recording could be admitted as evidence.

Saavedra said the pre-requisites include that the person responsible for the tape recording should be competent; the recording device should be capable of taking testimony, authenticity and correctness of recording; the recording must be established that changes, additions or deletions have not been made; the tape recording must show the manner of preservation of the recording and the identification of the speakers; and that the recording must show that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind of inducement.

According to Saavedra, the governor failed to establish the authenticity of the recordings, as she was not able to obtain a certification from the National Telecommunications Commission.

Saavedra, however, admitted having been interviewed by Lastimosa on that date and that he criticized the governor for her alleged “advertent non-inclusion of the P261 million” transaction with WT Construction.

But he said that being a public figure, the governor should not be onion-skinned when criticized on issues involving public interest.

Saavedra even quoted a Supreme Court ruling citing the New York Times versus Sullivan case in which the high tribunal said the debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasant sharp attacks on government and public officials.

He also cited the Vasquez versus Court of Appeals case in which the Supreme Court ruled that, “for the matter, even if the defamatory statement is false, no liability can attach if it relates to official conduct, unless the public official concerned proves that the statement was made with actual malice.”

 Saavedra has claimed his statement was made without malice. — Fred P. Languido/LPM