Readers of this column are probably aware that this writer had been accused by Tutok-To-Win partylist representative Samuel Verzosa of cyber libel case on account of a previous article raising doubts on whether he had properly finished the New York City Marathon last November.

The case was filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Manila where Verzosa is running for Mayor. OCP Manila set two hearing dates for mediation and another two hearing dates for preliminary investigation. This writer attended all of the hearings set while the complainant never showed up.

Complainant was represented by a fraternity brod. His chief of staff in Congress, another fraternity brod, likewise attended a couple of hearings on his behalf.

On the other hand, while I had well-meaning sissies and friends who offered their legal services for free, I did not deem it necessary to bother another soul for a case I thought was patently baseless.

On the last hearing date, this writer submitted her counter-affidavit highlighting admissions made by Verzosa in his complaint-affidavit, at the same time refuting the presence of the elements of cyberlibel.

Last Friday, a pleasant news came via mail when this writer received a copy of the Resolution dated 14 January 2025 of the OCP Manila dismissing Verzosa’s complaint due to insufficiency of evidence.

While the OCP disagreed with this writer’s position that her column was not defamatory, the OCP acknowledged the absence of the element of malice.

Citing the case of Daquer v. People, G.R. No. 206015, 30 June 2021, the OCP said: “In cases of criminal libel where public figures, particularly public officers, are private complainants, actual malice — knowledge that the defamatory statement was false or with reckless disregard as to its falsity — must be proved. It is the burden of the prosecution to prove actual malice, and not the defense’s burden to disprove.”

“…There is reckless disregard if the accused was found to have entertained serious doubts of the truth of the published statements, or if the statements were of a matter not determined to be a legitimate topic in the area. Errors or misstatements by themselves are insufficient to be considered reckless disregard, unless shown that the accused possessed a high degree of awareness of the falsity. Mere negligence is not enough.”

The OCP then explained that in Verzosa’s case: “…There is no evidence offered or presented by the complainant that the respondent knew or recklessly disregarded the falsity of her article. On the contrary, the complainant even admitted or confirmed that in the marathon or sports event he participated in, there is no evidence that he reached certain markers of the marathon ‘because the NYCM organizers appears to have already removed the same at the exact time that we passed through them.’ What the complainant did was to offer an explanation on the missing splits.”

As an advocate against the use of the law on cyber libel for political gain or mileage, this comes as a vindication. I am fortunate that I am a lawyer who has spent nearly 30 years in litigation and have prosecuted and defended parties in all sorts of cases.

How about the ordinary layman without the legal and financial resources to mount a defense? They remain extremely vulnerable to a law that has oftentimes been used for harassment, or in a manner that curtails freedom of speech or of the press. Criminal cases, even the most baseless ones which are eventually dismissed, can still produce a “chilling effect.”

At the height of this controversy, a troll operation was at work. Many of them posted identical venomous messages and even photoshopped my image then superimposed the same on a police line-up wall to give the impression that I had been arrested. These accounts either had locked profiles, or contained identical campaign posts of the complainant.

Then there were the Rendon Labrador types whose existence I came to know only because they devoted entire posts against me.

Troll operations are like a black hole that sucks in and perverts the freedom of speech. It is what should be criminalized. This is another advocacy I am taking on.

This space will continue to be a column on anything and everything running related. The other week, I wrote about William Goodge, the running influencer who had been accused of using mules for the record-breaking ultras he has run.

Unlike the complainant, Goodge had been accused of downright cheating, yet he simply laughed all the criticisms off and just continued running.

It doesn’t appear that people ever took the wild accusations against Goodge seriously. Must be the very dignified way he reacted.