NAGA CITY -- The provincial prosecutors here dismissed last December 10, 2007 the libel case filed against Bicol Mail’s staff writer Juan Escandor Jr., editor Jose B. Perez and publisher Nilo Aureus, that stemmed from a banner story that bared details of the disbursement of P300,000 and a resolution that set mobility allowance for the general manager and members of the Board of Directors.

        Taking offense of the story titled “More funds disburse by directors exposed, P10,000 each per GM, directors every month”, Alden S. Bonot, former member of the Board of Directors of Camarines Sur II Electric Cooperative (Casureco II), filed the libel case against Escandor, Perez and Aureus.

        The prosecutors declare: “finding that the assailed publication to be privileged communication, the private complainant being a public figure, and the failure…to establish actual malice on the part of the respondents, the dismissal of this instant case is hereby recommended”.

        Bonot alleged that the June 7, 2007 issue of the Bicol Mail, Escandor conveyed to the readers that the members of the Board of Directors of Casureco II received P20,000 each out of the P300,000 as advocacy fund in support of the APEC party-list campaign in the May 14, 2007 election.

        The ex-director added that the news story was “malicious and false”.

        It was explained the amount of P300,000 was actually appropriated as Casureco’s contribution to the common fund of the Bicol Electric Cooperative Association (Beca), which was supported by Resolution No. 2007-84.

        Bonot also denied they received P20,000 each out of the P300,000, since the check covering said amount was received by Beca and was deposited to the General Fund of Casureco II.

        The ex-director tagged again the publication as “malicious and false” with the inclusion in the news story the P110,000 monthly mobility allowance for each of the directors and the general manager.

        “Upon examination of the evidence at hand, particularly the publication subject of this case, the undersigned noted that the respondent writer disclosed in his article the sources of his column”, including supplemental budget as well as Resolutions No. 2007-05 and 2007-053.

        But the prosecutors pointed out that Bonot did not even rebut the existence of said documents Escandor mentioned in the news story; instead, the former simply advanced the point that the publication was false and malicious.

        The dismissal decision cited Art. 354 of the Revised Penal Code that provides: “Every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown.”

        The exception of the cited provision included cases wherein (1) A private communication made by any person to another in performance of any legal, moral, or social duty; and (2) A fair and true reporting made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature.

        Further probing an argument of malice, the prosecutors believe it is incumbent upon Bonot to prove actual malice even if assumed that indeed there was a mistake in the report.

        The prosecutors drew from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Borja vs. CA, January 1999 that stated: “Even assuming that the contents of the articles are false, mere error, inaccuracy, or even falsity does not prove actual malice.”

        Finally, the dismissal decision concluded that “errors or misstatements are inevitable in any scheme of truly free expressions and debate, so that, “consistent with good faith and reasonable care, the press should not be held to account to a point of suppression, for honest mistakes or imperfections in the choice of language.”