Tirso Cruz III accompanied by wife Lynn Cruz and legal counsel Maan Baudi (left); PEP editors Jo-Ann Maglipon and Erwin Santiago together with legal counsel Ana Alexandra Castro

Former Film Development Council of the Philippines (FDCP) chair Tirso Cruz III formally filed his counter-affidavit to the cyberlibel complaint of his predecessor Liza Diño-Seguerra.

He swore by his affidavit before senior assistant prosecutor Joselito Bacolor at the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office on July 31, 2024.

At his filing, Tirso was accompanied by his wife Lynn Ynchausti-Cruz and his legal counsel Mary Antonnette Baudi of Alonso and Associates Law Firm.

Tirso Cruz III with wife Lynn Cruz and legal counsel Maan Baudi

Tirso Cruz III with wife Lynn Cruz and legal counsel Mary Antonnette Baudi 
Photo/s: Rachelle Siazon

Other lawyers from his legal team, though not present during the filing, include Atty. Peachy Gregorio and Atty. Angela Sibug.

Liza sued Tirso for cyberlibel in relation to a nine-part report published on PEP.ph (Philippine Entertainment Portal) in May 2023.

The report showed issues surrounding FDCP during Liza’s tenure as chairperson.

Liza was appointed as FDCP chair from August 2016 to July 2022; while Tirso was entrusted with the same position as FDCP chair from July 2022 until his resignation in March 2024.

In an official statement obtained by PEP on August 1, Tirso’s legal counsel underlined that Liza’s cyberlibel allegation against Tirso is “unfounded and lacks merit.”

Here is Atty. Baudi’s statement in full:

“Mr. Tirso Cruz III, who is among the respondents in a cyber libel complaint filed by Liza Diño, former chair of Film Development Council of the Philippines (FDCP), submitted his Counter-Affidavit before the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office this Wednesday morning, July 31, 2024.

“He was accompanied by his legal counsel, Atty. Mary Antonnette M. Baudi of Alonso and Associates Law Offices.

“She emphasized that the accusations attributed to Cruz in the release of FDCP documents as a former FDCP Chair is unfounded and lacks merit.

“The complaint failed to show Cruz’s complicity in any criminal act and as such the complaint should be dismissed.”

Tirso arrived at the fiscal’s office at 8:49 A.M. of July 31 for the submission of his counter-affividavit.

Tirso Cruz III with legal counsel Maan Baudi

Tirso Cruz III submits sworn affidavit to Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Joselito Bacolor 
Photo/s: Rachelle Siazon

PEP EDITORS FILE THEIR SWORN COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS

A few minutes before Tirso’s arrival, at 8:39 A.M., PEP editor in chief Jo-Ann Maglipon, associate editor Erwin Santiago, and deputy managing editor Rachelle Siazon submitted their joint counter-affidavit to fiscal Bacolor.

It was their response to the same cyberlibel complaint Liza lodged against Tirso.

Atty. Maan Baud, Atty. Josabeth Alonso, Jo-Ann Maglipon, Tirso Cruz III, Erwin Santiago, Atty. Ana Alexandra Castro, and Rachelle Siazon at Quezon City Prosecutor's Office

Seen from left to right are Atty. Mary Antonnette Baudi, Atty. Josabeth Alonso, Jo-Ann Maglipon, Tirso Cruz III, Erwin Santiago, Atty. Ana Alexandra Castro, and Rachelle Siazon at QC Prosecutor’s Office. Cruz, Maglipon, Santiago, and Siazon are respondents in one out of four cyberlibel complaints of Liza.

The PEP editors were accompanied by their legal counsel Ana Alexandra Castro of Yorac Sarmiento Arroyo Chua Coronel Reyes Law Firm.

On July 26, 2024, Maglipon and Siazon submitted a sworn counter-affidavit in response to a separate cyberlibel complaint, but also related to the nine-part report published on PEP in May 2023.

PEP’S OFFICIAL STATEMENT

In an official statement, PEP’s legal counsel underlined that two out of the four elements of cyberlibel are lacking in Liza’s complaint.

Referring to the nine-part report published on PEP in May 2023, Atty. Castro emphasized that the “PEP editors did not personally ascribe a discreditable act or condition against the complainant.”

Atty. Castro explained that the report did not contain “personal comments or opinions” from the editors, but that it was a mere reportage of “information provided by their sources” that were “duly supported by relevant documents.”

PEP’s lawyer added that there was “no malice” in the publication of the nine-part report as it was “a fair and true report, made in good faith, on the issues surrounding the FDCP.”