Ex-judge faces raps for saying Supreme Court justice 'can be bought'

MANILA, Philippines - A former Laguna judge is facing charges of libel before a Manila court after he called Supreme Court Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. “a person who can be bought” when he opposed his nomination to the Supreme Court in 2006.

The Department of Justice, in a resolution dated April 30 but released only yesterday, upheld the findings of city prosecutors of Manila that there is probable cause to charge lawyer Pablo Francisco with libel before the court.

“It has been held that defamatory remarks and comments on the conduct or acts of public officers which are related to the discharge of their official duties will not constitute libel if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation,” stated the resolution, signed by Justice Undersecretary Ernesto Pineda.

“Unfortunately, respondent in the case at bar failed to prove the truth his imputations against complaint.”

Preliminary investigation by the city prosecutor of Manila showed all elements of the crime of libel were present in the case against Francisco: imputation of a crime was made publicly, there was malice, and the imputation tends to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt to a person.

In his complaint, Velasco said Francisco submitted to the Judicial and Bar Council a notarized written opposition to his nomination to an SC seat. Velasco filed the complaint when he was still a court administrator.

“(Francisco’s letter made) libelous remarks as defined and penalized under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code,” read the complaint.

In opposing his nomination, Francisco said Velasco was “a person who lobbies or intervenes on behalf of friends with cases pending in the higher courts, misused and abused his official position for gain, accepts golf sponsorships for judges from private persons in exchange for money or favors.”

In his defense, Francisco said his letter opposing Velasco’s nomination was a privileged communization that could not be the subject of a libel case.

He was bound by his “civic duty” in opposing the appointment of Velasco, Francisco said.

Records show Francisco resigned as a Laguna regional trial court judge in June 2003 after the complaints he filed against his employees were dismissed because of recommendations by court administrators, including Velasco.

The Manila prosecutor said Francisco’s allegations were “malicious” and “motivated by hatred, bitterness and revenge due to his forced resignation from the judiciary.”

The prosecutor also agreed with Velasco’s argument that Francisco singled him out from other nominees to the SC vacancy – CA Justices Roberto Barros and Rodrigo Casico and Court Administrator Alfredo Benipayo, who Francisco also accused of unfairly treating him when he was still a Laguna judge.

The prosecutor said Francisco’s accusation “clearly dishonors, discredits or otherwise defames complainant before his friends and superiors in the judiciary and the general public as a whole.”