REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

CITY OF PASAY, METRO MANILA )SS.

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

I, SEN. ANTONIO SONNY F. TRILLANES IV, of legal age, Filipino,

married, with office address at Room 519, Senate Building, GSIS Financial
Center, Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City, after being first sworn in accordance with
law, do hereby charge: REY JOSEPH RJ NIETO (Respondent Nieto for
brevity), the blogger behind the Facebook account Thinking Pinoy, with the
cybercrime offense of libel as defined and penalized under Section 4 (c) (4) in
relation to Section 6 of the CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012, R.A.
No. 10175, as well as Article 353 to 355 of the REVISED PENAL CODE, which
was committed as follows, to wit:

1. On October 31, 2017, Respondent Nieto published and/or caused

the publication of a derogatory Facebook post on his Facebook account, which is
publicly known as Thinking Pinoy, with internet or web address at
www.facebook.com/TheThinkingPinoy/, wherein he made the following
assertions:

TRUMP CALLS TRILLANES A DRUG LORD

US President Donald J. Trump reportedly called Senator

Antonio Sonny F. Trillanes IV a Narco, a colloquial
word for a drug baron or drug lord.

DOES TRUMPS GOVERNMENT KNOW SOMETHING?

Enclosed as Annex A hereof is a printed copy of the screen capture of the

said Facebook post.

2. Having posted in the Facebook account of Respondent Nieto in the

internet, this malicious imputation was published far and wide and all over the
world, including in Pasay City, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Office and
the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. In fact, as of today, November 21, 2017,
it has received sixty-two thousand (62,000) reactions and was shared fifteen
thousand seven hundred fifty-nine (15,759) times from those who have seen it, to
the grave and utter detriment and prejudice of herein complainant;

3. Moreover, the claim of Respondent Nieto constitutes fake news.

Respondent Nieto did not even cite the source or the news outfit (as there was
indeed none) that purportedly conducted the supposed interview where the
President of the United States allegedly uttered those words. In fact, when the
Philippine Star sought verification on the said claim, the US Embassy referred
the newspaper to the official website where transcripts of the US Presidents
press engagements are made available. And, lo and behold, there was never a
mention of my name in the transcripts thereon. Attached as Annex B hereof is
a copy of the article of the Philippine Star posted and published on November 4,
2017 with the title No Trump mention of Trillanes.

1
 4. Being a very vocal and staunch critic of President Rodrigo Roa
Duterte, of whom Respondent Nieto is a self-confessed diehard supporter and
defender, Respondent Nietos post was clearly made solely for the purpose of
besmirching my reputation and maligning my name.

5. Needless to state, since the Respondent Nieto caused the

publication of the derogatory post through the electronic medium (i.e., using a
computer system), respondent is clearly guilty of the cybercrime offense of
LIBEL, as defined and penalized under SECTION 4(c)(4) in relation to SECTION
6 of the CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012, R.A. No. 10175, thus:

CHAPTER II
PUNISHABLE ACTS

SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. The following

acts constitute the offense of cybercrime
punishable under this Act:

(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and

availability of computer data and systems:

xxx

(b) Computer-related Offenses:

xxx

(c) Content-related Offenses:

(1) Xxx;
(2) Xxx;
(3) Xxx;
(4) Libel. The unlawful or prohibited acts of
libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, committed through a
computer system or any other similar means
which may be devised in the future.

SEC. 5. Other Offenses.

xxx

SEC. 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the

Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special
laws, if committed by, through and with the use of
information and communications technologies
shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this
Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed
shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided
for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and
special laws, as the case may be.

[Underscoring and highlighting supplied]

2
 6. Clearly, the said acts of the respondent constitute the crime of libel,
as defined and penalized under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC),
thus:

Art. 353. Definition of libel. A libel is public and

malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or
defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
condition, status, or circumstance tending to
cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a
natural or juridical person, or to blacken the
memory of one who is dead.

xxx xxx xxx

Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar

means. A libel committed by means of writing,
printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph,
painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic
exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished
by prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to
6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action
which may be brought by the offended party.

[Underscoring and emphasis supplied]

7. The essential elements of the crime of Libel are as follows:

a. That there is an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or

imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance;
b. That the imputation must be made publicly;
c. That it must be malicious;
d. That the imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person,
or one who is dead; and
e. That the imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or
contempt of the person defamed1.

8. Respondent Mr. Nieto has publicly and maliciously alleged, claimed

and/or insinuated and made it appear that the undersigned was involved in the
proliferation of drugs in the country which is a crime penalized by law. The said
false and malicious claim, allegation and/or insinuation, which respondent
ascribed against me, was obviously intended to cause dishonor, discredit and/or
contempt against my name.

9. As can be seen from all the foregoing, such malicious imputation is

purely a falsity, baseless, and is without actual basis.

10. Considering the nature of this derogatory imputation, it is

undeniable that malice attended the posting of the subject post. In the case of

1 The Revised Penal Code, Book II, by Justice J. B. Reyes

3
ALONZO vs. COURT OF APPEALS [241 SCRA 51], the Supreme Court laid
down the rule as to when malice arises in libel, thus:

There is malice when the author is prompted

by personal ill will or spite and speaks not in response
to a duty but merely to injure the reputation of the
person who claims to have been defamed.

[underscoring ours]

11. Moreover, Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Every defamatory imputation is presumed

to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good
intention and justifiable motive for making it is
shown, except in the following cases:

1. A private communication made by any person

to another in the performance of any legal, moral or
security duty; and

2. A fair and true report, made in good faith,

without any comments or remarks, of any judicial,
legislative or other official proceedings which are not
of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or
speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other
act performed by public officers in the exercise of their
functions.

[underscoring ours]

12. The circumstances attendant in this case will readily illustrate that
the actuation of the respondent in posting the derogatory Facebook post was
attended by malice and that the foregoing exceptions do not apply.

13. As a result of the baseless and malicious imputations of

Respondent Nieto, Complainant suffered extreme anxiety, wounded feelings,
sleepless nights and a slur in his reputation for which the award of moral
damages in the amount of ONE MILLION PESOS (PhP 1,000,000.00) would be
but a feeble assuagement;

14. In order to serve as an example for the public good, and to deter
persons similarly inclined like the respondent from committing the same or similar
offense, Complainant most respectfully prays that Respondent Nieto be made to
pay exemplary damages in the amount of ONE MILLION PESOS (PhP
1,000,000.00);

15. Finally, because of the malicious actions of Respondent Nieto,

Complainant was compelled to hire the services of counsel to help him file and
prosecute this case, for the services of whom he has agreed to pay Attorrneys
fees in the amount of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PhP 250,000.00)
and incur expenses of litigation;