DOJ files cyberlibel raps vs. Baligod, 18 ex-bodyguards in 4 NCR courts

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed cyberlibel charges against the 18 former bodyguards of former Ako Bicol Party-List Representative Zaldy Co and their lawyer, Levito Baligod, before four trial courts in Metro Manila.

Justice spokesperson Polo Martinez said that all informations were filed on July 28 before the regional trial courts (RTCs) of Caloocan City, Las Piñas City, Muntinlupa City, and San Juan City.

Prosecutors recommended six counts of cyberlibel and four counts of perjury against the 18 individuals.

DOJ Undersecretary Ian Norman Dato explained that the choice of venue was based on Rule 2.1 of the Rules on Cybercrime Warrants, which allows cases to be filed in the place where any element of the crime was committed, where the computer system used in the offense is located, or where the damage occurred.

“The reason for the determination of the venue or jurisdiction is anchored on Section 2.1 of the rule on the issuance of cyber warrants. It states that the court that has jurisdiction is either number one, that the province or city or any of the elements of the crime has been committed or where any of the computer system has been used or number three, where any damage occurred.” Dato added.

Meanwhile, Martinez said Baligod was charged with four counts of cyberlibel, three of which he was charged with the 18 bodyguards, and one in his individual capacity.

No perjury charge was recommended against the lawyer.

To recall, the 18 individuals previously alleged the delivery of cash from Co to various personalities.

The charges stemmed from the complaints filed by former Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, former National Security Adviser Eduardo Año, House Deputy Minority Leader Leila de Lima, and Bureau of Corrections Director General Gregorio Catapang Jr.

Martinez said the complaint filed by Fr. Flavie Villanueva was dismissed.

In a statement posted on Facebook, Baligod slammed the filing of charges against them before separate courts, saying this seeks to make things difficult for them.

He said they cannot expect “fairness and rule of law” from the DOJ and the National Prosecution Service.

For their part, Martinez said that all informations were filed in strict adherence to the applicable rules on jurisdiction and venue.

“Filing all the cases in a single venue, without a legal basis for each offense, would itself be contrary to those rules,” he said.

“For cyber libel, venue is determined under Section 2.1 of the Rule on Cybercrime Warrants. For perjury, venue generally lies where the allegedly false affidavit was subscribed and sworn,” he added.

Asked to comment on Baligod’s allegation that due process was violated in the handling of the cases, Dato maintained that the National Prosecution Service strictly complied with the rules of procedure.

He expressed confidence that the evidence gathered against the respondents is sufficient to support the charges filed before the courts.

“The National Prosecution Service, the panel of prosecutors, strictly adhere to the rules of procedure. So, any suspicion of deviation from the rules of procedure, any questions are welcome, but if you check the record and evidence that support the charges, I am very confident that those will be…I am confident that those will stand scrutiny and that they have followed strictly the rules of procedure,” Dato said.

The DOJ also addressed questions on the apparent difference between its findings and those of the Office of the Ombudsman regarding the statements of the “Maleta Boys.”

Dato stressed that the DOJ and the Ombudsman have separate constitutional mandates and conduct independent evaluations of the evidence. He said the department sees no contradiction between the two investigations.

According to the DOJ, its investigation focused on the joint affidavit executed by the 18 “Maleta Boys,” which prosecutors found contained numerous inconsistencies. In contrast, the Ombudsman relied on the respondents’ individual affidavits, each addressing specific allegations against particular individuals.

When asked whether the cases filed in different courts could eventually be consolidated, the DOJ declined to comment, citing the sub judice rule. Dato said the matter is now before the courts and should be allowed to take its natural course.

The DOJ also responded to Baligod’s claim that the respondents were not given the opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration before the filing of the cases.

The department explained that once prosecutors determine that sufficient evidence exists to establish probable cause, they may directly file the corresponding informations before the court.

The DOJ has recommended bail of ₱18,000 for each accused in the perjury cases and ₱10,000 for each accused in the cyber libel cases.

DOJ Undersecretrary Nicky Ty said that the Office of the Ombudsman has dismissed the joint affidavit of the 18 alleged bagmen who claimed to be the former bodyguards of dismissed lawmaker and fugitive Zaldy Co.

The 18 alleged bagmen implicated several high-ranking officials in the flood control scam through a joint affidavit, which named no less than President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. himself.

Lawyer Levito Baligod submitted their joint affidavit to the Office of the Ombudsman in February.

“The Ombudsman dismissed the joint affidavit. Yung Ombudsman mismo ang nagsabi na walang bisa yung dokumento na yun,” DOJ Undersecretary Nicholas Ty said in a press conference.

(The Ombudsman dismissed the joint affidavit. The Ombudsman itself said that the document itself is useless.) —with Jean Mangalum/VAL/LDF/NB, GMA News