Prosecutor: Drug protector tag on Rama ?not libel’

CEBU, Philippines - The Office of the City Prosecutor has affirmed its decision that the libel complaint filed by former Cebu City mayor Michael Rama against Mayor Tomas Osmeña has no probable cause.

In a resolution, Prosecutor Naruzen Delfin-Lorete said Rama did not introduce newly-found evidence on the five counts of libel and two counts of slander or grave oral defamation case against Osmeña.

Osmeña welcomed the city prosecutor’s decision, saying he has the “best witness” in President Rodrigo Duterte, who named Rama as alleged drug protector twice in separate speeches.

“Of course he has a drug problem, serious drug problem. Instead of denying it, you know, he should go to a rehab. That’s my suggestion,” Osmeña said.

Rama challenged Osmeña to present the result of his hair follicle and urine drug test that the latter underwent in December 2016.

Both Rama and Osmeña underwent the hair follicle and urine drug test. Rama had presented his negative result.

“To tell you honestly, I don’t know. It skipped my mind,” Osmeña had said.

He said he will ask Augusto Go, whom he trusted his hair sample, to seek a laboratory where his sample will be tested and examined.

Earlier, Rama filed the criminal complaint against Osmeña after the latter has been posting on his official Facebook account that the former mayor "has a serious drug problem."

“The intent to defame of the element of malice is absent from those remarks. Accordingly, there are no compelling reasons to disturb, modify or reverse the questioned resolution,” said Lorete in the resolution denying Rama’s motion for reconsideration.

City Prosecutor Liceria Lofranco-Rabillas approved the resolution dated Jan. 30.

Osmeña’s lawyer Kirk Bryan Repollo said he received the resolution yesterday morning.

On November 3, 2016, the Office of the City Prosecutors dismissed Rama’s complaint against Osmeña for lack of probable cause.

Rama said he will not stop his move to seek an audience with Duterte, so that he can present his side that he can never be a drug protector.

Rama also told Osmeña to “be ready,” saying that the latter will be named as an alleged drug protector. Rama said he has been hearing it from “reliable sources.”

“Remember, he was the one being talked about and mine is only, I think if I’m not mistaken, an insertion.  It was him who was practically being talked about and why should it be me coming out,” Rama said.

In the resolution, Lorete cited the case of United States vs Bustos, adding that commentaries or opinions regarding one’s function or duty as a public official must remain unhampered and should be received with open-mindedness.

“After a careful review of the case, it is clear that respondent’s remarks were purely his opinion as an exercise of his right of freedom of expression,” read the resolution.

Rama, in his motion for reconsideration, said malice is present in the case, adding that the remarks made by Osmeña were given “wide latitude, it is be subject to the rule that, such remarks must not be false, not malicious and not unrelated to the public officer’s function.”

Rama said there are certain restrictions of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution.

Osmeña, for his part, there was no “actual malice” in making those statements. (FREEMAN)