Halika 3.0

GMA Network has asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to reverse and set aside the findings of the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office in the libel case it filed against ABS-CBN and the copyright infringement case filed by ABS-CBN against GMA Network executives in connection with the coverage of the arrival of Angelo de la Cruz, the Overseas Filipino Worker who was taken hostage by Iraqi rebels.

Earlier, the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office, through Investigating Prosecutor Dindo G. Venturanza, had dismissed for lack of probable cause the libel charges filed by GMA Network against ABS-CBN executives and talents and charged GMA Network News Operations Head Grace de la Peña-Reyes and News Program Manager John Oliver Manalastas of violating the Intellectual Property Code.

In its petition for review before the DOJ dated January 4, 2005, GMA Network, through counsels Gener E. Asuncion, Eric Vincent A. Estoesta, and Pierre M. Cantara of Belo Gozon Elma Parel Asuncion and Lucila Law Office, said that the Office of the City Prosecutor’s ruling on the said cases was “not in accord with the facts, law and jurisprudence.”

GMA-7 said that the Office of the City Prosecutor committed error in finding that there was no libel or defamatory imputation in the statements aired in ABS-CBN’s news reports where ABS-CBN accused GMA Network of stealing its video footage of the arrival of Angelo de la Cruz last July 22, 2004 as the statements were obviously intended to defame and expose the Network into ridicule and contempt and not “simply to inform the viewers of the alleged copyright infringement.”

GMA-7 said that the statements made by ABS-CBN news anchor Erwin Tulfo and reporter Lynda Jumilla in two separate programs Insider on July 22, 2004 and Magandang Umaga Bayan clearly portrayed to the viewers that GMA Network people are “thieves,” “snatchers”, and “usurpers.”

Contrary to the City Prosecutor’s reasoning that there was “absolutely nothing in the language of the report, taken in its entire context, that suggest or form an impression in the minds of the viewers that ABS-CBN intended to merely defame GMA-7,” GMA said that the intention of Tulfo and Jumilla to defame GMA was evident from the tone and style of the reports as well as the circumstances that surround the airing of the reports.

Malice was also obvious since ABS-CBN and GMA-7 are rival networks and that the accused ABS-CBN people bear sharp resentment against GMA Network.

GMA also said that the City Prosecutor was wrong when it ruled that the statements made by Tulfo and Jumilla were “factual and true without unfair and uncalled comments and were broadcast in good faith and for justifiable ends” as GMA was accused of the crime of theft of video footage, which is not true.

GMA said that to announce to the whole world that GMA-7 is a thief of video footage without positive or direct proof, without a formal complaint, much less conviction does not constitute good motives and justifiable ends.

As to the copyright infringement case filed by ABS-CBN against GMA executives, GMA Network said that the bases of the City Prosecutor for finding De la Peña-Reyes and Manalastas liable for copyright infringement are mere surmises, conjectures, and speculations.

According to GMA Network, there is no basis for the City Prosecutor to say that because De la Peña-Reyes is the head of News Operations and Manalastas is the Program Manager, they have direct control and supervision of the news control room and for which reason “they must have been aware that the said footage coming from Reuters and CNN, to which GMA is a subscriber, has a ‘No Access Philippines’ advisory.”

The news control room of GMA-7 is the area of Engineering and the feed on the arrival of Angelo de la Cruz from Reuters was an unscheduled feed and breaking news, which the Technical Operations Center of GMA was not able to anticipate.

De la Peña-Reyes checked and found out that there was no advisory of ‘No Access Philippines’ on the Reuters feed. When De la Peña-Reyes learned that Reuters had such a feed, she immediately called up Charie Villa but was not able to reach her before it was time for GMA to air its ‘Flash Report.’

No one also knew that CNN, to which GMA later switched, was carrying the feed from Reuters until De la Peña-Reyes received a call from Reuters Singapore that CNN was getting its footage from Reuters and that Reuters was getting its feed from ABS-CBN. However, at that time, GMA was no longer using the CNN feed.

GMA Network said that the call of De la Peña-Reyes to Villa proves that she and Manalastas were not aware of the alleged restriction. Otherwise, they would have not called up to find out if the Reuters feed could be used by GMA or not.

This is confirmed when Manalastas instantly stopped the airing of the Reuters feed barely four seconds after ABS-CBN reporter Dindo Amparo appeared.

Even at that stage, De la Peña-Reyes and Manalastas did not receive any call or notice from Reuters that the footage belonged to ABS-CBN.

GMA said that the City Prosecutor made a mistake in ruling that De la Peña-Reyes and Manalastas cannot avail of the defense of good faith because “the Intellectual Property Code is a special law wherein good faith and abuse of criminal intent is not a valid defense.”

GMA argued that it is still essential even in special laws that there must be intent to commit the act, which means, it must be committed consciously, freely, and voluntarily.

GMA said that the Network’s management, corporate officers and managers, particularly De la-Peña-Reyes and Manalastas had no intent to infringe the alleged exclusive news footage on Angelo dela Cruz of ABS-CBN or to air the same had they known that Reuters was using the live video of ABS-CBN.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 12th, 2005 at 1:01 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.