Activists indicted over grave oral defamation
Department of Justice prosecutors recommended the filing of grave oral defamation charges against environmental activists Jhed Tamano and Jonila Castro for saying they were abducted by soldiers.
The panel of prosecutors, in a 15-page resolution, recommended Castro and Tamano to be separately charged for grave oral defamation under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code.
Prior to this, the Philippine Army’s 70th Infantry Battalion commanding officer Ronnel dela Cruz under Article 183 of the RPC filed an initial complaint of perjury against them.
“Corollary, the real issue in this case is the statements spoken by respondents during the press conference which are directly contradictory to their ‘Sinumpaang Salaysay.’ Thus, based on facts and evidence on record, we find probable cause to indict respondents for grave oral defamation,” the panel said.
In September 2023, the NTFELCAC claimed that Tamano and Castro surrendered to the 70IB in Doña Remedios Trinidad, Bulacan in the same month.
The two were presented at a press conference, ostensibly to debunk reports of their abduction. However, the activists said they were abducted by the military.
The DoJ said, “We consider the statements of respondents to be serious slander because the circumstances of the case show that they consciously, intentionally, and on purpose waited and chose the press conference which would be held in public to air their grievance and plight.”
The prosecutors said the remarks of the two were made with “intent to strike deep into the character, honor, and reputation” of Dela Cruz and the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
The panel said, it was not inclined to believe Tamano and Castro’s claim that their sworn statement was made under duress.
“In this case, respondents failed to demonstrate that at the time they executed their respective ’Sinumpaang Salaysay,’ there was an imminent and real danger of death or some great bodily harm upon their persons,” the DoJ panel said.
They noted that Tamano and Castro were assisted by a lawyer from the Public Attorney’s Office, who executed a sworn statement that the two “freely and voluntarily” executed their statement.
Representatives of the Commission on Human Rights also visited Tamano and Castro twice while they were with the 70IB and checked for human rights violations.
The two, according to the panel, were also able to talk to Tamano’s parents.
It said that on both occasions, they never mention to the persons about any coercive action employed by the complainant and his men.
The panel said the scenario of impending danger was not buttressed with concrete proof and instead, it said it appeared that Tamano and Castro were properly treated and sheltered.
The panel said it was not persuaded that the two were abducted and the evidence presented by respondents is anemic and insufficient to reasonably conclude that they were abducted.
Also, the two could not specifically identify and name their abductors but merely insinuate that they are military men.