BAGUIO CITY -- The state-owned Bases Conversion and Development Authority filed recently a motion to inhibit Pasig City Prosecutor Jacinto G. Ang from acting on any matter concerning the libel case against BCDA as it questioned the impartiality of the chief Pasig City prosecutor in handling the case.
The BCDA filed the motion to inhibit based on a previous case that involved and favored Robert John L. Sobrepeña the complainant of the libel case against the BCDA. The MOI stemmed from an 11-page resolution approved by City Prosecutor Ang as ruled by investigating/reviewing prosecutor Assistant City Prosecutor Dennis R. Pastrana that the BCDA Board be charged with libel in connection with a published notice in a national broadsheet.
The libel complaint was filed by CJHDevCo chairman Robert John L. Sobrepeña A similar libel complaint, based on the same published Notice, was also filed in Baguio City by the Sobrepeña-led CJHDevCo and was dismissed by Acting City Prosecutor of Baguio City Elmer Surot last year. Last 10 April 2012, BCDA published a “Notice to all owners, lessees and buyers in Camp John Hay” in the Philippine Daily Inquirer. The notice was made to inform the public of the pending estafa case which BCDA filed against CJHDevCo and of the questionable business practices within Camp John Hay. The published material disclosed that CJHDevCo paid its shareholders P928 Million in the same years it refused to pay lease rentals to government allegedly because the lessee was suffering business losses.
BCDA’s MOI cited the case of spouses Chua v. Hon. Jacinto Ang, where the Supreme Court ruled that the public prosecutors, chief of whom was City Prosecutor Jacinto G. Ang effectively shied away from the duty to prosecute when they dismissed a criminal complaint that was filed against Robert John L. Sobrepeña, among others, on the ground of prematurity. In the case of the Spouses Chua, the Supreme Court ruled that City Prosecutor Ang and Assistant City Prosecutor Dennis R. Pastrana “acted on the case in a manner outside the contemplation of law. This is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction.”
BCDA’s MOI stated that “The Supreme Court’s findings gives rise to justifiable doubts on the independence and impartiality of the Honorable Office in the present case which involves Robert John L. Sobrepeña.”
BCDA further asked that “the investigating prosecutor and the city prosecutor should inhibit themselves from further acting on any matter concerning the case and hearing the Motion for Reconsideration.” The BCDA maintains that there was no malice, everything published in the ad was true, and that it was done to protect public interest. In a similar libel complaint based on the same published notice filed in Baguio by the Sobrepeña-led CJHDevCo, Acting City Prosecutor of Baguio City Elmer Surot ruled last year that the published notice is not defamatory nor malicious. He stated that the notice was made in furtherance of the public trust reposed upon BCDA Directors and was supported by public records. City Prosecutor Surot found nothing defamatory about the published material as these were fair and true reports of the fact that indeed BCDA filed an estafa complaint against CJHDevCo for having previously sold a property eventually used as payment to the government.
The resolution stated that it was a fact that the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) issued a notice of violation against CJHDevco last 14 March 2012, that CJHDevCo paid its shareholders dividends in the years it claimed losses and asked to defer rental payments to government; and that there are recorded complaints of business malpractices of CJHDevCo within Camp John Hay. “A close reading of the articles clearly showed that respondents were just stating a fair and true report of [the facts],” stated the resolution.
The resolution also stated that the statements made by the BCDA directors were made to protect the corporation and the investing public. The Prosecutor agreed that as a government agency, BCDA is justified to make such statements. Such call is an exception to the presumption that every defamatory imputation is deemed malicious since it is “a fair and true report made in good faith without any comments or remarks … of [an] act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.” Prosecutor Surot said that since the notice contained statements based on public records and communications, this can hardly be considered to have been made with reckless disregard of whether they are false or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment