Tweeps warned of libel by tweet

MANILA, Philippines – A warning to “tweeps” or those with Twitter accounts: that “tweet” may just cost you a libel case.

For not submitting his answer despite opportunities given him, comedian Chokoleit faces a libel charge for allegedly maligning talk show host Cristy Fermin in his Twitter account.

The case against Chokoleit (Jonathan Aguilar Garcia in real life) has been raffled off to Branch 101 of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court presided over by Judge Evangeline Marigomen.

The libel case was filed on the recommendation of Assistant Prosecutor Michael Millora after the comedian failed to appear at the prosecutor’s office and submit his reply to Fermin’s complaint despite due notice.

“The existence of malice in fact may be shown by extrinsic evidence that the respondent bore a grudge against the offended party, or that there was rivalry or ill-feeling between them which existed at the date of the publication of the defamatory imputation or that the respondent had an intention to injure the reputation of the offended party as shown by the words used and the circumstances attending to the publication of the defamatory imputations,” Millora’s resolution said.

Twitter is a social networking site where its users can post their thoughts or comments not exceeding 140 characters.

Fermin, also a columnist, alleged that some time in June last year, her showbiz friends called her attention to allegedly insulting and malicious remarks against her made by Chokoleit in his Twitter account “chOkOLeit2010.”

At first, Fermin said, she ignored the messages in the belief that the issue would die down, but the respondent allegedly continued posting statements that distressed Fermin and caused mental and emotional anguish.

The assailed messages include one saying: “magbyad ka ng utang mo Shrekty Fermin kapal ng mukha mo!! Mas panget ka! Sinungaling! Kadiri ka. Baho ng mukha mo! Estafadora!”

In the resolution, which is part of the indictment against Fermin, Millora said: “It is clear from the messages sent by the respondent from his own social network website that he has the intention in maligning the reputation of the complainant branding her as ‘estafadora’ or swindler.”