ARRAIGNMENT

JUDGE: GINA MAE LABIAGA

CLERK OF COURT: INDUCTIVO
COURT STENOGRAPHER: CADANGAN
PROSECUTION COUNSEL: ATTY. JAYSON CLEMENTE
DEFENSE COUNSEL: ATTY. BRIONES
ACCUSED: MADELEINE AGLIBUT
COMPLAINANT: PAMELA REYES
WITNESS: KYLE BUSTOS

PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE
JUDGE: Gina Mae Labiaga
CLERK OF COURT: Inductivo
COURT STENOGRAPHER: Cadangan
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:
1. Atty. Jayson Clemente
DEFENSE COUNSEL:
1. Atty. Briones

ARRAIGNMENT

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2023 - 7926

People of the Philippines vs. Madeleine Salvador y Aglibut

Clerk of Court: Please all rise!

(All rise)
Clerk of Court: RTC Branch 144 is now in session, Honorable Gina Mae Labiaga presides; let us
seek guidance from above.

Prayer: Almighty God, we stand in Your Holy Presence as our Supreme Judge. We humbly
beseech You to bless and inspire us so that what we think, say and do will be in accordance
with Your will. Enlighten our minds, strengthen our spirit and fill our hearts with fraternal love,
wisdom and understanding, so that we can become effective channels of truth, justice and
peace. In our proceedings today, guide us in the path of righteousness for the fulfillment of
Your greater glory. Amen.

Clerk: Please be seated.

Judge: Court is now in session. (Bangs gavel) Call the case for arraignment.

Clerk of Court: For arraignment, Criminal Case No. 2023-7296, People of the Philippines vs.
MADELEINE S. AGLIBUT for Violation of Section 4(C)(4) Libel, as defined in Article 355 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system of Republic Act. 10175.

Judge: Is the accused in court?

(Accused and Counsel stand)
Defense (Atty. Briones): Yes, your Honor. Atty. Glemuel Briones appearing as counsel for the
accused. She is present. Ready for arraignment.

Judge: Is the complainant present?

Prosecution (Atty. Clemente): Yes, your Honor. The complainant, Pamela Anne S. Reyes, is in
court. I am City Prosecutor Jayson Clemente, appearing as a public prosecutor.

Judge: Accused Madeleine S. Aglibut, please come forward. Has your counsel explained to you what
will transpire at the arraignment?

Accused: Yes, your Honor.

Judge: Do you understand the English Language, or do you wish to be arraigned in a language other
than English?

Defense (Atty. Briones): Your Honor, my client can understand English and will be arraigned in
English.

Judge: Let’s proceed with arraignment. Mr. Clerk of Court arraign the accused and read the
information in English.

Clerk of Court: People of the Philippines vs MADELEINE S. AGLIBUT Criminal Case No. 23-7296
for Violation of Sec 4(C)(4), Republic Act. 10175. Information: The undersigned Prosecutor Jayson
Clemente accuses MADELEINE S. AGLIBUT of the crime cyberlibel, defined and penalized under
Section 4(C)(4), of Republic Act. 10175 in relation to Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code,
committed as follows:

That on April 16, 2023 at around 6:00 P.M. at 26 Urdaneta Avenue Urdaneta Village 1225 Makati
City, accused Madeleine S. Aglibut voluntarily, unlawfully, feloniously, and with the intention to malign
the character and reputation posted a video on social media and gravely uttered defamatory
statements against complainant Pamela Anne S. Reyes and her Restobar in the video causing insult,
dishonor, discredit, to the complainant as they malign and attribute immoral acts to her.

Contrary to the law. Signed by Atty. Jayson Clemente, City Prosecutor.

Judge: Madeleine S. Aglibut, do you understand the nature of the accusation against you?

Accused: Yes, your Honor.

Judge: How do you plead?

Accused: Not guilty your Honor.

Clerk of court: The accused pleaded not guilty your honor.

Judge: Let it be on the record that the accused pleaded not guilty for the Violation of Section 4(C)(4),
of R.A. 10175 or the crime of Cyberlibel. The information was read to him in English, a language
known and understood by the accused. Also, Atty. Jay Vee Cadangan, the defense counsel of the
accused assisted her in this arraignment.

Atty. Jayson Clemente: Your honor, we would like to set the case for pre-trial on May 13, 2022
Judge: Are you amenable with the schedule defense counsel?

Atty. Briones: Yes, your honor.

Judge: Ok set the pre-trial of the case on May 13, 2023. Both parties agreed that the Pre-Trial will be
held on May 13,2023.

Court Stenographer: Yes, your honor.

Judge: In today's trial, the arraignment of Madeleine S. Aglibut (accused) in Criminal Case No. 2023
- 7296 is conducted. The information is read to her in English a language known and understood by
her. Defense counsel Atty. Glemuel Briones assisted the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty for
the crime charged against her.

No objections both for prosecution and defense, the case is set for pre-trial on May 13, 2023. Notify
the parties thereto. So ordered.

PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE

Clerk of Court: Criminal Case No. 2023-7296, People of the Philippines vs Madeleine S. Aglibut for
violation of Section 4(C)(4), Libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
committed through a computer system of Republic Act. 10175.

Judge: Appearances?

Prosecution (Clemente): Your Honor, I am Atty. Jayson Clemente appearing as a public prosecutor.

Defense (Briones): Atty. Glemuel Briones, counsel for the accused your Honor.

Judge: One of the purposes of preliminary conference is to determine the possibility of amicable
settlement or plea bargaining. As to plea bargaining, prosecution?

Prosecution (Clemente): Your Honor, at the moment, there is no possibility of plea bargaining or of
settlement.

Judge: Defense?

Defense (Briones): Your Honor Please, the defense does not also desire to enter plea bargaining.

Judge: Let’s proceed to marking of your evidence and request for admission, for the prosecution.

Prosecution (Clemente): With the permission of this Honorable Court. Your Honor Please, the
prosecution will present the following documentary evidence and mark as prosecution’s exhibits:
Prosecution: Will the defense admit the existence and due execution of the following documents and
as our Exhibit A your honor: The Police Blotter prepared by John Matthew Manuel, dated April 17,
2023

Defense (Briones): Yes, your honor, the document mentioned and described by the prosecutor is
admitted as to existence and due execution but not as to its contents.

Prosecution (Clemente): Exhibit B: The Resolution issued by the Investigating prosecutor.

Defense (Briones): Yes, your honor, the document mentioned and described by the prosecutor is
admitted as to existence and due execution but not as to its contents.

Prosecution (Clemente): Exhibit C: The Complaint Affidavit of the private complainant.

Defense (Briones): Yes, your honor, the document mentioned and described by the prosecutor is
admitted as to existence and due execution but not as to its contents.

Prosecution: Exhibit D: Screenshot of the video posted by the defendant.

Defense (Briones): Yes, your honor, the document mentioned and described by the prosecutor is
admitted as to existence and due execution but not as to its contents.

Judge: What do you say Atty. Briones as to the request of the prosecutor with respect to the
document’s existence and due execution?

Defense: Yes, your honor, the document mentioned and described by the prosecutor is admitted as
to existence and due execution but not as to its contents.

Judge: Are you reserving your presentation of evidence

Defense: Yes, your Honor.

Judge: Okay. So, what are the issues to be resolved?

Prosecution: Your Honor Please, the prosecution submits issued to be resolved, whether the
accused committed the offense charged in the information.

Judge: How about the defense?

Defense: Yes, Your Honor, the defense submits the following issued to be resolved:
1. Whether the post is authentic
2. Whether the defendant is guilty thereof

Judge: Okay. How about the witnesses

Prosecution: The prosecution will present 2 witnesses, Your Honor.

First, the Complainant herself Pamela Anne S. Reyes to prove that the complainant saw the
video itself made against her, that makes her to file a complaint against the defendant.
Second, Ronald Kyle S. Reyes, brother of Pamela Anne S. Reyes to prove that he was the
one who first saw the post that was made against the complainant and her Restobar and to
verify its authenticity.
 The prosecution reserves its right to present other witnesses in the course of the trial, Your
Honor.

Judge: Alright, how about the Defense, how many witnesses?

Defense: The defense will present 1 witness, Your Honor.

The accused itself to verify if she is the one who posted the video.

The accused, Your Honor reserves her right to present other witnesses in the course of the
trial.

Judge: Any other matters?

Defense: Your Honor, as for now, we have no more things to discuss.

Judge: Alright, are the parties willing to consider the pre-trial terminated

Prosecution & Defense: Yes, Your Honor.

Judge: Order. In today’s Pre – Trial Conference, Atty. Jayson Clemente appeared for the prosecutor,
and Atty. Glemuel Briones appeared for the accused.
POSSIBILITY OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT
During the pre-trial, there was no agreement between the parties as to the possibility of plea-
bargaining of the case.

STIPULATION OF FACTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES

The complainant, through Public Prosecutors and the accused, through his counsels stipulated on the
following that:
1. That the both parties do not desire to enter plea bargaining.
2. That the prosecution will provide witnesses
3. Atty. Jayson Clemente appeared for the prosecutor, and Atty. Glemuel Briones appeared for
the accused.

ISSUES TO BE TRIED OR RESOLVED

1. To prove that the complainant saw the video itself made against her, that makes her to file a
complaint against the defendant.
2. To prove that he was the one who first saw the post that was made against the complainant
and her Restobar and to verify its authenticity.

On the other hand, the defense would like the following issues to be resolved:

1. Whether the defendant committed the offense filed against her.

The pre-trial of this case is hereby terminated. No objections both for prosecution and defense, the
case is set for trial on May 13, 2023.

Notify the parties thereto. So, ordered.

 Mock Trial Script

Criminal Case: Violation of Sec 4(C)(4), of Republic Act. 10175

CAST:

Judge: Gina Mae Labiaga

Accused: Madeleine Aglibut

Complainant: Pamela Anne Reyes

Public Prosecutor: Jayson Clemente

Defense Counsel: Glemuel Briones

Clerk of Court: Eliz Inductivo

Witness: Kyle Bustos

Stenographer: Jay Vee Cadangan

.
Clerk (Indicutivo): Please rise. The Court is now in session, The Honorable Judge Gina Mae
Labiaga presiding.

All: Almighty God, we stand in Your holy presence as our Supreme Judge. We humbly beseech you
to bless and inspire us so that what we think say, and do will be in accordance with your will.
Enlighten our minds, strengthen our spirit, and fill our hearts with fraternal love, wisdom and
understanding, so that we can be effective channels of truth, justice, and peace. In our proceedings
today, guide us in the path of righteousness for the fulfillment of Your greater glory. Amen." 

Clerk: Please be seated.

Judge: Court is now in session. (Bangs gavel) Call the Cases.

Clerk (Inductivo): Your Honor, today’s case is the criminal case no. 2023-7296 People of the
Philippines vs. Madeleine S. Aglibut, for violation of Sec 4(C)(4), of Republic Act 10175.

Judge: Counsels make your appearance.

Clemente: Your Honor, my name is Atty. Jayson Clemente, and I am representing the People of the
Philippines in this case.

Atty. Briones: Your Honor, my name is Atty. Glemuel Briones, and I am representing the Accused in
this case.

Judge: Is the prosecution ready?

Clemente: (Stand Up) Yes, Your Honor.

Judge Labiaga: Is the defense ready?

Atty. Briones: (Stand Up) Yes, Your Honor.

Judge Labiaga: We will now hear the opening statement from the Prosecution. Prosecutor Clemente
please state your case.

Clemente: Thank you, Your Honor. The accused Madeleine Aglibut voluntarily, unlawfully,
feloniously, and with the intention to malign the complainant person, character and honor caused to
publish a video in her TikTok account, a highly false and scandalous video. We will prove that the
accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The reason we ask your Honor, the verdict of guilty.

Judge: Thank you. The defense would like to give an opening statement or would like to defer until
the prosecution rest its case.

Atty. Briones: Your Honor, will defer and wait until the prosecution rest its case.

Judge: Thank you counsel. For the prosecution, you may now call in your first witness.

Clemente: Yes, your honor. The prosecution would like to call on the Complainant Pamela Anne S.
Reyes in the witness stand. The witness is being presented to testify that she saw the post made
against her.

Clerk: Can you please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, all the truth and nothing
but the truth in this case?

Witness (Pam): Yes, I do.

Clemente: Ms. Reyes please introduce your self

Witness (Pam): I am Pamela Anne S. Reyes complainant of this case and owner of the Restobar
that was being drag down in the video.

Prosecution (Clemente): Ms. Reyes, can you please tell the court what happened?

Pamela Reyes: Yes, Your Honor. On April 16, 2023, I saw a video posted on social media that
contained false and malicious statements about me and my Restobar.

Prosecution (Clemente): Do you know who posted the video?

Pam Reyes: Yes, Your Honor. (Points the accused) Ms. Madeleine Aglibut she is a social media
influencer and used to be my friend.

Prosecution (Clemente): Thank you, Ms. Reyes. Your Honor, we have no further questions for this
witness.

Judge: Defense, do you have any question for the witness?

Defense (Briones): Yes, Your Honor. Ms. Reyes, can you tell the court what specifically in the video
was false and malicious?
Pam Reyes: The video claimed that my Restobar served contaminated and spoiled food and she
even besmirch my reputation as a businesswoman. These allegations are completely false and have
caused me and my Restobar a lot of harm.

Defense (Briones): Thank you, Ms. Reyes. No further questions, Your Honor.

Judge: Prosecution, please present your next witness.

Prosecution (Clemente): Your Honor, we would like to call Ronald Kyle S. Reyes to the stand.

Judge: Please take the stand, Mr. Reyes.

Clerk: Can you please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, all the truth and nothing
but the truth in this case?

Witness (Bustos): Yes, I do.

Prosecution (Clemente): Mr. Reyes can you please tell the court how you came across the video in
question?

Witness (Bustos): Yes, Your Honor. I was browsing through my TikTok account when I saw the
video posted by the defendant. I immediately recognized what she is talking about and watched it.

Prosecution (Clemente): What did you do after?

Witness (Bustos): I rushed to my sister and showed the video to her to verify if it is true.

Prosecution (Clemente): Thank you, Mr. Reyes. Can you tell the court if you believe the video is
authentic?
Witness (Bustos): Yes, Your Honor. Based on what I saw in the video, I believe that it is authentic
and was not manipulated or edited in any way.
Prosecution (Clemente): Thank you Mr. Reyes. Your Honor, we have no further questions for this
witness.

Judge: Defense, do you have any questions for the witness?

Defense (Briones): Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Reyes, can you tell the court if you have any personal bias
or interest in this case?
Witness (Bustos): No, Your Honor. I am simply here to tell the truth about what I saw and what I
believe to be true.
Defense (Briones): Thank you, Mr. Reyes. No further questions, Your Honor.

Judge: Prosecution, do you have any other witnesses?

Prosecution (Clemente): No, Your Honor. We rest our case.

Judge: Defense, do you wish to present any witnesses?

Defense (Briones): Yes, Your Honor. We would like to call the defendant, Madeleine S. Aglibut, to
the stand.
Judge: Please take the stand, Ms. Aglibut.

Clerk: Can you please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, all the truth and nothing
but the truth in this case?

Defendant (Aglibut): Yes, I do.

Defense (Briones): Ms. Aglibut please introduce yourself.

Defendant (Aglibut): I am Madeleine S. Aglibut social media influencer and the accused in this case.

Defense (Briones): Ms. Aglibut, can you please tell the court about your involvement in the creation
and posting of the video in question?
Defendant (Aglibut): Your Honor, I admit that I created and posted the video. However, I did not
intend to harm Ms. Reyes or her restobar. I was simply expressing my opinion about the quality of the
food and service at the establishment.
Defense (Briones): Thank you, Ms. Aglibut. Your Honor, we have no further questions for this
witness.
Prosecution (Clemente): Yes, Your Honor. Ms. Aglibut, do you believe that the statements in your
video were true and accurate?
Defendant (Aglibut): Your Honor, I believe that the statements were based on my personal
experience and opinion. However, I now understand that they may have been taken out of context
and could be perceived as false and malicious.
Prosecution (Clemente): Thank you, Ms. Aglibut. No further questions, Your Honor.
Judge: Thank you, Counsel. Any closing statements?
Prosecution (Clemente): Your Honor. The prosecution believes that the defendant, Ms. Aglibut,
acted with malice and intent to harm Ms. Reyes and her restobar by posting false and malicious
statements about them on social media. We ask that the court find her guilty of the charges.
Defense (Briones): Your Honor, we acknowledge that Ms. Aglibut made a mistake in her judgment
when creating and posting the video. However, we believe that she did not act with malice or intent to
harm. We ask that the court consider this in its decision.
Judge: Both parties’ prosecution and defense has rested its case.
So ordered. (Bangs Gavel)
Clerk: The promulgation of judgement of Criminal Case no. 2023-7296. People of the Philippines
vs. Madeleine S. Aglibut for violation of Sec 4(C)(4) or Libel, as defined in Article 355 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system of Republic Act 1017.

That on or about 16 April 2023, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
knowingly posted a scandalous and false video about the Plaintiff and her Restobar.”

After a careful evaluation of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense, the
Court finds the prosecution’s evidence sufficient in establishing the guilt of Madeleine Salvador y
Aglibut beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175.

Cyberlibel is punishable under Section 4 (C)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175, otherwise known as
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which provides: 

Section 4. Cybercrime Offenses. – The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable
under this Act: 

xxx xxx

(c) Content-related Offenses: 

xxx        xxx      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. 

xxx        xxx      xxx

Libel is defined as “a 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.”

By adopting the definition of libel as embodied in the Revised Penal Code, Section 4 (c)(4) also
adopts the elements of libel as defined in Article 353 in relation to Article 355 of the Code. Thus, the
elements of libel are: (a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; (b)
publication of the charge; (c) identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice. In addition
to the aforementioned four (4) elements, the act must be committed through the use of a computer
system or any similar means which may be devised in the future, so that said act may constitute
cyberlibel. 

In this case, the prosecution was able to establish the presence of all the elements of cyberlibel. 

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused MADELEINE

SALVADOR AGLIBUT GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 4 (C)(4) of
Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and is hereby sentenced to suffer
the penalty of imprisonment of Six months and one day of prision correccional as minimum.
The accused MADELEINE SALVADOR AGLIBUT are, likewise, ordered to pay private
complainant Pamela Anne Reyes, the following:
 1. ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php100,000.00) as and by way of MORAL DAMAGES.

Judge: So order. Session is now dismissed. (Bangs gavel)