Manila: Manila 6th District Rep. Bienvenido 'Benny' Abante Jr. on Tuesday filed a criminal complaint for cyberlibel and libel against lawyer Levito Baligod, 18 former bodyguards of dismissed Ako Bicol Party-list Rep. Zaldy Co, and radio station DWSI 864 over what he described as 'incorrect, baseless, and misleading' allegations that he received luggage filled with cash.

According to Philippines News Agency, the complaint-affidavit was filed before the Office of the Prosecutor in Manila, with Abante requesting prosecutors to charge the respondents with cyberlibel under Article 355 in relation to Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code and the Cybercrime Prevention Act, or alternatively, libel under the Revised Penal Code. Named as respondents in the complaint, in addition to Baligod, were Belnard Tube, Rosebert Waupan, Benny Bulontate, Johnny Buduan, Rodante Orbillo, Reyneboy Julian, Christopher Esquivel, George Villalon Jr., Romeo Rommel Bobares, Gil Navidad Jr., Anselmo Taberdo, Joely Cadiao, Rommel Galapon, Cecilio Larroder Jr., Bernard Gumban, Crisanie Dado, Fidel Corpuz, and Walter Manalansan.

The radio station DWSI 864, owned and operated by Swara Sug Media Corp., was also named for allegedly disseminating the questioned statements through its Facebook platform and other media channels. The complaint arose from the publication and dissemination of an unsigned and unnotarized 'Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay' dated February 23, which allegedly insinuated that Abante was among House members who received public funds in cash-filled luggage.

Abante expressed his strong denial of the allegations, stating, 'For the record, I vehemently deny the incorrect, baseless, and/or misleading allegations made by the complainants in the Libelous Salaysay distributed and made known to the media and public during the Libelous Press Conference, and thereafter published on respondent DWSI's Facebook page through the Libelous Post.' The allegations were reportedly aired during a February 24 press conference led by Baligod and later disseminated through DWSI platforms and social media.

Abante further emphasized the false nature of the claims, arguing, 'The Respondents falsely insinuate that I (among others) received luggage containing cash from public funds. These allegations are entirely false, maliciously fabricated, and without any basis in fact or law.' The complaint noted that the former bodyguards of Co claimed public funds amounting to PHP805 billion had been distributed in luggage to several personalities, a claim Abante dismissed as implausible and unsupported by evidence.

Abante criticized the respondents for publicly airing their 'unsigned and unnotarized' allegations rather than first presenting them to the proper authorities. He highlighted differences between the unsigned document circulated at the press conference and the notarized affidavit filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, pointing out a reported admission by Baligod regarding an 'oversight' in including Mamamayang Liberal Party-list Rep. Leila De Lima in the document.

Abante further noted the lack of specific dates, places, or circumstances supporting the claims, stating, 'Significantly, the allegations lack any specific date or circumstance of the claimed delivery and receipt, while photographs show only cash, luggage, and strangers, establishing nothing. Coupled with their groundless tale, this amounts to nothing more than smoke and mirrors slander.'

The complaint also described repeated accusations during a June 4 proceeding, which Abante labeled as a purported Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing convened by senators allied with former Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano. This, he argued, constituted a 'fresh and separate publication of the same libelous imputations, compounding the damage already inflicted on my reputation and demonstrating a continuing malicious campaign rather than a single isolated act.'

Abante asserted that the respondents acted with actual malice by circulating an unsigned and unnotarized document publicly, despite having access to proper legal remedies. He characterized this as a deliberate choice revealing an intent to tarnish his reputation, incite public outrage, and prejudice any ensuing investigation by the Ombudsman or other authorities, constituting 'irrefutable trial by publicity.'

The complaint also seeks additional charges that prosecutors may consider warranted based on the evidence presented.