Monday, 1 October 2012

Tim Cumper - Through Another's Eyes

Tim Cumper brings up the following perspective for you to consider.

It is very difficult to ascertain, when looking at the Search Engine Results Pages - precisely what is going on.
In a constant state of flux - one would need the eyes and mind of the Google Page-ranking Algorithm to receive a clear picture.

However, despite this, and considering that the material being published by the propaganda campaign is being honed by people expert in the field of Internet Search Engine Optimisation - it is clear that they are investing their best effort to succeed, by aligning these efforts as best they can, with the requirements of the search algorithm.

Whether or not the people concerned would ever admit now, to deliberately conducting a campaign (which is unlikely) - the results of the combined efforts of more than one person - already reveal that this is precisely what is happening.
We have already seen, from the initial stages of this onslaught in 2008 - written admissions from several of the 2 dozen or so people involved that they were actively engaged in a SEO campaign - so we know that this is their style - whether conducted openly or in stealth.

The renaming, re-labeling, re-tagging of the material pages which had been filtered out by Google's positive action to my requests to remove certain URLs from their search pages, in a circumvention move, the fresh appearance of numerous pages tagged with my name - all originating in the blogs and websites administered by John Phillips Bengero, Noemi Lardizabal-Dado & Reyna Elena, (the original 3 people) - demonstrate clearly who are the remaining and most energetic activists.

It is clearly apparent that this is still a continuation of the original campaign - but with a shift of target, from burying my story - to burying me.
Initially this shift was accompanied by the familiar feeding-frenzy of flippancy and mockery that has been the campaign's consistent style since day one.
For one reason or another - this has now totally disappeared into a chasm of silence - leaving only the remnants of previous battles soiling the ground.

Silence is the new weapon of the campaign.
The campaign has now advanced to automatic status, whereby it self-generates perpetually, with little need for optimisation or tweaking.
The html links, buried in the templates of websites by these main protagonists - automatically generate results in the SERPs - while the normal blogging business of these people is resumed.
With every new page written in their day-to-day blogging - the links bring the campaign secretly to the surface - a foul slick rising from submarine activity beneath - silent - stealthy - deadly effective.

As with all submarine activity - silence is the rule.

The people concerned have outgrown the need to engage, to expose their attitudes and personal comments -  showing up their complete lack of sound, ethical motive and their twisted hypocrisy - they wish no longer to reveal any more their tactics of humiliation & deceit - for these things all reflect badly on themselves.

No - what suits their cowardice with perfect comfort - is to skulk in determined silence - to let a completely vacant void echo my pleas for conciliation (after four years) - tipping the barbs of their secret activity with the poison of deliberate frustration - lending the impression that forces have been disbanded, that the weapons are now unmanned.

Yet another lie - camouflaged by cunning.

Saturday, 29 September 2012

Tim Cumper - Change of Mind

Tim Cumper poses the question "If we are to believe excuses made for the lack of communication from the hospital to myself - what are we to suppose caused them to change their policy, and their mind?"

Allegedly, a "xerox" of a generated bill was in the possession of a member of the real estate staff on Monday 13th August 2007 - as I was informed by her that she had encountered a problem whilst attempting to scan it at the real estate office - resulting in the figures for hospital charges having to be sent to me by her, as copied into an ordinary email using the real estate email account.
This caused questions as to why were the hospital not communicating, directly & officially, with  myself.

I received no official communication at all directly from the hospital (despite urgent requests that they do so) until the 21st August, when the JPG of a bill was sent to me by the hospital email account - 11 days after the alleged admission.

This proves, at the least, that the hospital had the ability to transmit such a document, despite many excuses made by others for why it could not be done - and despite assurances later on that it was not done any earlier because of "confidentiality" policy.

However, it was done eventually - so what was it that made the hospital do a U-turn on this policy?

The fact that the day before I had received this JPG of a bill, I revealed the URL of the story, as it appeared on my private blog at MySpace (made temporarily public and accessible for them to read) - drastically weakens the argument that it simply & coincidentally happened to arrive as a voluntary gesture at the time it did.
Its arrival at this time also seems odd in light of information contained in an email from the girl on 24th August, that some days previous to my receiving the JPG of the bill, arrangements had allegedly already been made that the account was to be paid by the girl's family.

Such staunch defenses have been proposed since, even by the hospital themselves in my later exchange with them, underlining the "confidentiality issue" - that this eventual change in policy by the hospital must be seen as curious.
Furthermore, and anyway, how could the simple confirmation by the hospital of information that I was already supposed to know (which was all I was hoping for) be described as "releasing confidential information?"

The hospital had already ignored completely, my emails to them  - but later on, they were alleged by the girl, to have denied ever receiving them.

In which event therefore, the subject of these emails must have been raised while the girl herself was still at the hospital - for the hospital could not have brought up the subject of emails never received.
If this is the case, why then was this genuine reason for lack of communication not transmitted to me at this time, when the subject was raised - instead of much later, only after she had allegedly been discharged - and why, in place of this genuine reason, were all manner of other excuses to be made, by others on the hospital's behalf? (see Tim Cumper - Red Flags No 44)

Or, if it was an alleged discussion of this nature which eventually prompted the immediate sending of the JPG of the bill, then why was the confidentiality issue still raised beyond this time as the reason for the hospital's non-communication, when they had obviously already voided (by the standards of their own policy) any confidentiality issue in the sending?
Why also, was this alleged discussion only happening at this time, when the subject of official confirmation from the hospital to myself had been my top priority - & I had urgently informed those I was able to correspond with of this fact, ever since Sunday 12th August?

All this would seem to strengthen the argument in favour of the reason for sending the JPG of the bill, as being  the reaction to my revealing the story online.

It strengthens the probability that it was not sent voluntarily at all, as nothing official had appeared - voluntarily or not, up to this time - and that it was eventually sent for some other reason.
Nor was this reason that they did not have the means to send it - nor was it not sent on the day of its first appearance (13th August) because of confidentiality issues (which were now, apparently of no importance) - nor was it in danger of remaining outstanding - which all give further cause to doubt its overall legitimacy.

I had presumed that the people I was communicating with, Sir F & Marivien (of the real estate staff - both whom I had met) - were acting on behalf of the girl (Mayen) - sincerely helping out by forming a communication bridge crossing the 6,000 miles between us.
Not for Mayen's exclusive benefit, although she was allegedly the one in need - but generally to protect the relationship that we were forging - I understood that they would realize the necessity of this bridge to be efficient and thorough - to ease us both through this difficult time.
From all descriptions given by these people - they classed themselves as Mayen's friend.

This was a tricky time - my suspicions were already latent & growing - but I had the unenviable difficulty of working at this situation from two, opposing points of view.
I was also at the crest of a wave, at the peak of my devotion towards the girl - so I was intent on continuing to build our dreams together - which meant I could not be too insensitive about my suspicions.
I reassured myself that the urgency of my requests would be understood and acted on swiftly - because of the general ambiance of friendship that I had perceived with the people who I was communicating with.

The answer was simple - to insist that the hospital dealt directly with myself in an official capacity.
Yes - I had on two occasions telephoned the hospital - but had never spoken to the girl other than on her cellphone.
Besides - word-of-mouth pledges and assurances are unreliable, and certainly do not carry the commitment & recognizable, verifiable authority - of an email using the hospital's traceable email account.

Further to this point, I saw the burden of proof as resting with those people who were corroborating the story on behalf of the girl - those I was communicating with - and that they would fully understand & respect this obvious & urgent requirement for verifiable, official proof.
With all the family members, friends and work colleagues in support of the girl - this urgent request was surely to be swiftly dealt with.

To go too much further, with precise demands, would be to risk the manufacture of evidence - purely to suit those demands - and a certain space had to be allowed, to assess what these people were prepared to volunteer, so as not to confuse it with duress.

Yes - I was due to fly out to the Philippines again - 4 days from receiving the first hint of all this news - and unfortunately, the coincidence of this event happening at precisely this time, for reasons which I didn't quite understand then - caused an added, nagging suspicion.

"The girl knew from my previous trip that I didn't have a credit card.
Money would have to be sent via Western Union (as it had twice previously, and as was first suggested for this situation) - or brought with me, in cash.
Could this have something to do with the timing of this incident?

It did coincide with the period in which normal Ectopic pregnancies are first diagnosed - but a ruptured Ectopic pregnancy of this type does not usually occur within this time frame. The earliest time, statistically, is still two weeks away.

If there was an original idea of extracting money for a faked, but normal pregnancy - this idea would have had to be scrapped (which it seemed it had - I was told that it was a false alarm) on the announcement of my second trip - because I could have sought independent verification on my arrival.
Any continued long term plan to gain money by this means would have then depended on a repeat performance of unprotected sex during my 2nd trip - which was highly unlikely - because although she had denied having an STD - she now knew that I had suspected contracting it from her. Whether or not she admitted to this in the future was irrelevant - as I would still be concerned over her protection, and I would no doubt be more cautious about future pregnancies.

Therefore, to benefit from the only realistic opportunity of a potential pregnancy for extracting money - it would have to somehow relate to the original pregnancy.
What fits the bill perfectly?
A ruptured Ectopic pregnancy operation - an emergency which would have had to be squeezed in before my forthcoming visit - to enable funds to be transferred before my trip or arrive with me - and to avoid the girl having to mimic the convincing symptoms of this emergency during my 2nd visit.

The ideal time would be to cause panic and confusion just before my trip - with not enough time to thoroughly satisfy the anticipated need for official confirmation - and yet with enough time for the girl to have herself discharged.
Already statistically early, and with a minimum hospitalisation time to consider - before I was to arrive - the optimum date is set."

So when all of this is added together - we can start to see the picture, from my perspective, and hopefully understand my reasons for caution - and that is just from this short episode, without the addition of doubts caused by a retrospect view of everything that had happened up to this point.

* Why was my simple request for official verification the cause for such hostility in the emails and messages from Sir F?

* Why did he send me his own bank account details to receive the payment?

* Why, instead of the anticipated and requested contact from the hospital, did I receive a list of figures, simply  printed in an email from the real estate office?

* Why was my simple request for official confirmation met with such emotionally manipulative hyperbole in the messages from Mayen, even before I had failed to arrive?

* Why had the hospital not replied to my emails?

* Why was my request not being acted on?

* Why was I only given a variety of other excuses in answer to my question of why the hospital had not communicated with me, until after the girl had allegedly been discharged?

Critically - why did the hospital eventually change their mind on their policy of confidentiality, if this was indeed the genuine reason?
If my request had been passed on to the hospital, urgently, when it was first made, why was I not informed of their response immediately?

If the change of policy was not as the consequence of my requests for official confirmation early on - for the hospital to later reverse their own policy that was robust enough to originally be strictly obeyed, and "strict & robust enough" to have been made in excuse ever since from all quarters - "confidentiality" as a solid reason to explain the hospital's lack of communication - then something, other than my requests, caused this dramatic change of policy.

The more powerful "adherence to policy" is made by those quoting it - then the more powerful must have been the influence which caused them to change their mind - they go hand in hand.

I suggest that if it was the revelation of my story which was sufficient cause for this change of mind - then it was equally sufficient to cause the JPG of a bill to be dispatched via the hospital email system - even if the hospitalization of the girl was not genuine - as an attempt to stop my probing any further into the situation.

Now - further questions are raised by the letter (allegedly) from the hospital's Legal Council.

"At the very outset, to the hospital, you were and still are a complete stranger. It was not at liberty to circulate information about her; the hospital treats its data in confidence. "

Besides not even considering the passages in the Patient's Bill Of Rights - 

- which suggest strongly, that the patient is at liberty to request that information is sent to whomever she requires to send it to - the next quote seems to be hinting that the JPG of a bill that was sent to me could have been "padded" - apart from the obvious increase due to an overstay simply because the hospital themselves were not communicating - the entire issue was about waiting for their response. 

"It might interest you to know that the hospital let go of Ms. Betita even despite her non-payment of a substantial portion of her bills."

Now if this theory is true - it would tie in with an email I received 27th August 2007, from someone who had been doing some investigation on my behalf.
Mayen had already left the hospital - and had told me via SMS that she had gone to her province - although the IP address of a surprise email from her, 7th September 2007, suggests that she was still in Manila.
This masquerade was pretended right up to immediately after the first "scar" revelation, when she then lied about returning to Manila with her father.

Unfortunately - this person who was helping investigate matters (another "complete stranger" - but one who was privileged to receive "confidential" information) quite probably received this information from the same source in the hospital - who had a) passed information to the nurse supervisor who spoke to me on the telephone when I was telephoning to check the figures I had received from the real estate office email.
b) passed information to the British Embassy - which was simply relayed to me.

Dear Tim,

After doing some research including a call to the hospital we came to the following:
- Mayen was in hospital and did require surgery (found out after making a phonecall)

The boss and relatives have decided you were responsible in some way and that they were going to ensure you paid, so they possibly padded the bill somewhat and lied about her being held at the hospital for non payment. 
She is not at the hospital any longer she was released on the 22nd, so there is a mix here, she has been in hospital, but the scam part comes in saying she is being held there till the bill is paid and they have doubled the bill as well.

- The Philippines is considered a cheap "young girl" adult entertainment (no offence to you) destination by many western men, and they in turn are looked on by the Filipinos as something of a cash cow. Both will act civilly till something goes wrong as it has here. 
If this were such a large and well organised set up we would certainly be seeing a lot more of this.

To make a long story short; No it is not a scam, but yes it is a scam. We can only guess what would have happened if you would have traveled there. 

All adding to the confusion - and making it even more critical that I received authoritative confirmation directly from the hospital - in a manner which would be committed on  record - such as an email using the hospital's own email account.
Certainly - I was not the only person giving myself that advice.

If this theory is true - through the thicket of other lies that were told - perhaps that would offer a reason why no other material evidence has been forthcoming (see also - protecting the hospital because they had padded the bill, and were negligent  in not communicating officially in some manner - with myself.

I repeat - "how could the simple confirmation by the hospital of information that I was already supposed to know (which was all I was hoping for) be described as "releasing confidential information?" - especially when the patient (allegedly) was insisting that this was urgently required.

"Confidentiality" appears to be rather a red-herring - as information was being passed out, allegedly - by Dras, nurses, accounts managers, left, right & centre - but not to the UK - at least, not in committed form - which was my yardstick of veracity - & would have been my green-flag to proceed.

So - how would this theory help us with making any sense of the bizarre appearance of the scar?

At seven weeks, according to all research done, it would not look anything like how it made its first appearance - its second appearance however did look much more appropriate.
How does it make any sense of the apparent smudging? 

We have to consider some alternatives.

Was the first showing that of a genuine scar – but one somewhat “enhanced” for its appearance on camera?
Could the first scar have been entirely fake, and owing to its strategic evidential value – kept in place for repeated showing should the need arise & could the exaggerated appearance of the first showing have been corrected for this second, perhaps more critical revelation?
Could all differences and indeed all apparent markers of fakery – be no more than artifacts of webcam video?

The matter of any fakery present is not to be decided by the video footage alone.
Obviously, attempts at fakery will closely mimic the real thing – and it is not possible to distinguish fake from genuine by webcam video alone.
The pertinence of this matter lies in the sheer coincidence of a strong possibility of fakery appearing in the wake of all other anomalies and inconsistencies.

Sunday, 16 September 2012

Tim Cumper - The Propaganda Plant

Entangled by the bonds of hate, he
who seeks his own happiness by
inflicting pain on others, is never
delivered from hatred.

Tim Cumper - The Bloggers

Tuesday, 12 June 2012

Tim Cumper - Proof of Vengeance.

Tim Cumper says "If more proof were necessary that the tactics of John Phillips Bengero (Jepoy) are nothing short of spiteful and malicious - read on."

Tim Cumper - Jepoy's vengance.

Here is another extract from the pages of "" & "The Tim Cumper Watch" - in which Jepoy rightfully and observantly points out that I had taken all material causing these people their alleged grievancies - out of circulation.

That is exactly what I had decided to do - however - rather than delete the blogs immediately I promptly placed them all in "draft" mode - but the reason was deliberate in finally bringing them out of circulation - hoping that this would gradually bring an end to the seemingly interminable conflict occurring online.

How wrong I was in that assumption.

For shortly after Jepoy's discovery that my blogs were "off-air" - I discover that he had cloned my 34 page blog - plus the other 3 blogs - and was offering exact copies up to the readership at his newly acquired domain name (registered by Noemi Dado - see Tim Cumper - Good Timing) - "" - material that had been previously assembled & displayed by him at a sub-domain of gameops own website "The Tim Cumper Watch" - a website demonstrating a technique known as "scraping-the-barrel" - in order to twist & distort my story - distilling every drop of poison possible to assist their propaganda campaign.
Such a vast store-house of absurd accusations, lies and arrogant bigotry - that deserves only to be removed entirely from the Internet - illustrating, to perfection, the collective mind-set of all collaborators in the campaign.
Illustrating - better than anything else - the type of sordid atmosphere that is germane to racketeering, organised crime, confidence tricks & scamming - the sort of collaborative covering up and deception suspected in the very story that these people attempted to bury - a probability so vehemently denied by this self-same group of people.

Originally - as is patently obvious by the key-words & tags used in its initial stages - the SEO campaign was designed to profess the innocence of the real estate company, named by myself in the story.

A little history of that story.

Conceived as a memento - a photo-journal of my blissfully happy romantic trip to meet the girl of my dreams.
This was hosted - and was completely private, save for a few "friends" - on MySpace.
Let me stress - it was not publicly accessible - and made no appearances whatsoever in the search engines - to all intents and purposes, it was invisible.

When things started to go awry, I continued with the writing of the story - and as a strengthener to my position - when my pleas for official contact or documentation were not met - I sent the real estate firm and the girl the URL of the story (see Tim Cumper - Change of Mind)- made briefly public and accessible to them, so that they could be aware of my serious intent - hoping that this would stir them into action in sending me the proof that I so urgently required.
The key here is that they were among very few people who knew of its existence.

Tim Cumper - Blog Reveal

The signs up to this point were looking increasingly suspect - two previous requests for money in the month of my return to the UK - and instructions to send the money for this, the third request, via Western Union - instructions I received 2 days before my previously arranged 2nd trip to visit the girl - I would have overtaken the money - there was a 3 day hold on money transfers to the Philippines.
All the classic signs of a "hospital type scam" - so very popular from these islands.

Apart from perhaps one critical area - the fact that, yes - we had slept together and engaged in unprotected sex during my first trip a month previously.

However, as such - this represents a golden opportunity for a scam - if there were any inclination, any slight deviation towards this intention - here was a chance to cash in.

Again - we are steeped in ambiguity.

For one interpretation we need only believe all the information at face value - as being true.

But another interpretation sees the following ingredients.

The coincidence of the pregnancy being proclaimed a "false alarm" - on the confirmation of my 2nd trip - I could have had the girl checked for pregnancy when I arrived.

The fact that there is a small window of opportunity in which to stage a realistic ectopic rupture - as it is - the dates suggest that it was untypically rather early.
As the girl knew that I had no access to further cash once I had arrived on my proposed 2nd trip (no credit card) - the money would have had to be sent before I departed - ie - the emergency would have had to happen before I left English soil - the first suggestion was to send it via Western Union - the method I had transferred the 2 previous amounts of cash to her.
If our relationship had continued - after this episode - there would definitely be no further unprotected sex between us - so the first suggestion of a pregnancy by the girl (whether real or not - it has not been proved) - represents the last and only opportunity to use the knowledge, that we both had, of our previous unprotected sex as a distinct advantage in the likelihood of a successful scam.

All those pointers almost define the date precisely - to when I got the call "from the hospital" - 5 days before my second trip.

As you can see, it is impossible to detect "truth" from information alone - information reads the same in either case - truth or falsehood.
However - behaviour is more difficult to falsify - behaviour is always a genuine reaction to real circumstances - which effects the appropriateness and timing of a response, indicated in the emotional content and importantly, the context of any response.
Perhaps these areas should be regarded as stronger indicators of "truth" than mere information alone.

Nevertheless - this could easily be just as ambiguous to interpret - accurate perception is a rare gift - especially in stressful circumstances such as these.

But I have digressed.

The story was eventually made public after the revelation which followed all the previous ambiguity - of a scar that appeared to be fake - inviting one to seriously question the probability of that happening.

I opened up the updated story on MySpace.

Within the hour - my account there was hacked - and my blogs deleted - months of work - gone forever.

So I thought at least - and so thought whomever it was responsible for the deletion.

Who could it have been I wonder?

One of my friends on MySpace?

Who else knew of its existence?

MySpace were extremely wonderful - after some security & ID checks - they managed to resurrect the files from their servers.

At this point - convinced that I was dealing with a bunch of crooks - I made efforts to publish the story - from this platform at blogspot - owned by Google.
For the very first time I noticed an appearance of the story in the search engines.

However - ambiguity was still in my thoughts - I needed unambiguous, irrefutable proof - and hoped that the wide publication of the story would achieve that for me - someone, somewhere would know something about the actual events - either way.
The real estate company - in the face of all this publicity - would surely send me the irrefutable proof that I required - and then it would all be removed - job done.

Boy! - was I wrong in that regard.

I published a letter - linking to the story - on a site called Filipina Images - little realising that the web-site owner also worked in Real Estate in the Philippines.
In fact it was an article on the very same real estate company involved in the story - which first showed me the link to Filipina Images - I did not realise these were web-sites owned by the same person.

The rest - as they say is history - except that it isn't - because it is still going on.

Realising, perhaps, that the initial thrust of the SEO campaign that was organised - directly linking to the name of the real estate company - was only adding to the saturation of bad-press in the search engines - and was also exposing the various contributors to pointed questions from myself, for which they had no answer - and also exposing the bigotry and the feeding-frenzy of contemptuous behaviour - not nice - what was to be done?

What would be the answer?

Continue with the campaign - but change the direction of thrust - to purely a personal attack on the author of the original story - accusing him of "stalking and harassment."

Meanwhile - block the author from commenting on the web-sites containing the propaganda material against him.
Meanwhile - incite support from a vast and already established base of  blog-followers (from the Philippines) - by presenting them with a severely distorted and unsubstantiated account of what happened - that they will find irresistible .
Meanwhile - retreat into stony silence in response to any attempted communication from the author.

Hence Jepoy's continued acts of vengeance - to a story that he himself has faked - despite his admitted knowledge that I had removed all material  connected to their grievances from circulation.

Of course - as a protective measure against misrepresentation by his new website - going under my name - "" - I felt forced to reinstate those blogs which were out of circulation - and create even more - this time using their various names - in order to keep my head above the rising tide of pollution in the SERPs - for my name.

Oakville Houses For Sale Wedding Pictures

Thursday, 3 May 2012

Tim Cumper - Various Points of Law


In the UK, there is no statutory definition of defamation. Instead, various statements by the courts contribute to a common law definition of defamation.

Each definition has a common link to the reputation of the person or business about whom the statement is made. The most widely regarded definition of defamation is a statement made which ‘tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally’. If there is no injury to the reputation or character of the person or business, then it is unlikely that the statement is defamatory. For example, a mere insult, or simple abuse, may not realistically injure the person’s reputation. However, where the statement exposes the person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or causes the person to be shunned or avoided, it may be defamatory.

Whilst not part of the definition of defamation per se, the defences of justification or truth, and fair comment, are important considerations in determining whether a statement is defamatory. Under the defence of justification, if it can be proved that the statement is substantially true, then the statement will not be defamatory. Similarly, under the defence of fair comment, if it can be established that the statement was intended as an expression of a genuinely held opinion, and not as a statement of fact, and that the opinion was made in relation to provable facts, then it may not be defamatory. Other defences, variations of a privilege defence, also exist.


"Aside from stalking via e-mail, online messaging, and social networking sites, Escudero said during Tuesday’s justice committee hearing that he also wants cyberstalking to cover the creation of websites dedicated to the person being stalked, especially if his or her pictures and whereabouts are being posted there." [GMA News Online 24th May 2011]


Libel Laws of the Philippines.

Under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, 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 discredit or cause the dishonor or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. Thus, the elements of libel are: (a) imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another; (b) publication of the imputation; (c) identity of the person defamed; and, (d) existence of malice.
[Daez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 47971, 31 October 1990, 191 SCRA 61, 67]

In libel cases, the question is not what the writer of an alleged libel means, but what the words used by him mean. Jurisprudence has laid down a test to determine the defamatory character of words used in the following manner, viz:

“Words calculated to induce suspicion are sometimes more effective to destroy reputation than false charges directly made. Ironical and metaphorical language is a favored vehicle for slander. A charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and understand that the person or persons against whom they were uttered were guilty of certain offenses, or are sufficient to impeach their honesty, virtue, or reputation, or to hold the person or persons up to public ridicule. . . . ”
[Lacsa v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 161 SCRA 427 (1988) citing U.S. v. O'Connell, 37 Phil. 767 (1918)]

An allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes to a person the commission of a crime, the possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstances which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt, or which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

There is publication if the material is communicated to a third person. It is not required that the person defamed has read or heard about the libelous remark. What is material is that a third person has read or heard the libelous statement, for “a man’s reputation is the estimate in which others hold him in, not the good opinion which he has of himself.”
[Alonzo v. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 51 (1995)]

On the other hand, to satisfy the element of identifiability, it must be shown that at least a third person or a stranger was able to identify him as the object of the defamatory statement. In the case of Corpus vs. Cuaderno, Sr. (16 SCRA 807) the Supreme Court ruled that “in order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable (People vs. Monton, L-16772, November 30, 1962), although it is not necessary that he be named (19 A.L.R. 116).” In an earlier case, the high court also declared that” … defamatory matter which does not reveal the identity of the person upon whom the imputation is cast, affords no ground of action unless it be shown that the readers of the libel could have identified the personality of the individual defamed.” [Kunkle vs. Cablenews-American and Lyons 42 Phil. 760].

This principle has been recognized to be of vital importance, especially where a group or class of persons, as in the case at bar, claim to have been defamed, for it is evident that the larger the collectivity, the more difficult it is for the individual member to prove that the defamatory remarks apply to him. [Cf. 70 ALR 2d. 1384].


The law also presumes that malice is present in every defamatory imputation. Thus, Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code provides that:

“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 social 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.”

Paragraph 2 aforequoted refers to a qualifiedly privileged communication, the character of which is a matter of defense that may be lost by positive proof of express malice on the part of the accused. Once it is established that the article is of a privileged character, the onus of proving actual malice rests on the plaintiff who must then convince the court that the offender was prompted by malice or ill will. When this is accomplished the defense of privilege becomes unavailing.
[Santos v. Court of Appeals, No. L-45031, 21 October 1991, 203 SCRA 110, 114]

Prescinding from this provision, when the imputation is defamatory, as in this case, the prosecution need not prove malice on the part of the defendant (malice in fact), for the law already presumes that the defendant’s imputation is malicious (malice in law). The burden is on the side of the defendant to show good intention and justifiable motive in order to overcome the legal inference of malice.

In order to constitute malice, ill will must be personal. So if the ill will is engendered by one’s sense of justice or other legitimate or plausible motive, such feeling negatives actual malice.
[Aquino, Ramon C., The Revised Penal Code, Vol. III, Bk. II, 1997 Ed., citing People v. de los Reyes, Jr., 47 OG 3569]

It is established doctrine that the malice that attends the dissemination of the article alleged to be libelous must attend the distribution itself. It cannot be merely a resentment against a person, manifested unconnectedly several months earlier or one displayed at a much later date.


Under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, libel may be committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means.


Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or bysimilar means, shall be responsible for the same. The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication, shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof.


In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be acquitted.

Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be admitted, unless the imputation shall have been made against Government employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties.

In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted.

It is important to remember that any of the imputations covered by Article 353 is defamatory and, under the general rule laid down in Article 354, 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. There is malice when the author of the imputation is prompted by personal ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person who claims to have been defamed. Truth then is not a defense, unless it is shown that the matter charged as libelous was made with good motives and for justifiable ends.


Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, a group of individuals, or an organization. It may include false accusations, monitoring, making threats, identity theft, damage to data or equipment, the solicitation of minors for sex, or gathering information in order to harass. The definition of "harassment" must meet the criterion that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress. Cyberstalking is different from spatial or offline stalking. However, it sometimes leads to it, or is accompanied by it.

Stalking is a continuous process, consisting of a series of actions, each of which may be entirely legal in itself. Technology ethics professor Lambèr Royakkers writes that:
"Stalking is a form of mental assault, in which the perpetrator repeatedly, unwantedly, and disruptively breaks into the life-world of the victim, with whom he has no relationship (or no longer has), with motives that are directly or indirectly traceable to the affective sphere. Moreover, the separated acts that make up the intrusion cannot by themselves cause the mental abuse, but do taken together (cumulative effect)."

When identifying cyberstalking "in the field," and particularly when considering whether to report it to any kind of legal authority, the following features or combination of features can be considered to characterize a true stalking situation: malice, premeditation, repetition, distress, obsession, vendetta, no legitimate purpose, personally directed, disregarded warnings to stop, harassment, and threats.

A number of key factors have been identified:
False accusations. Many cyberstalkers try to damage the reputation of their victim and turn other people against them. They post false information about them on websites. They may set up their own websites, blogs or user pages for this purpose. They post allegations about the victim to newsgroups, chat rooms or other sites that allow public contributions, such as Wikipedia or

Attempts to gather information about the victim. Cyberstalkers may approach their victim's friends, family and work colleagues to obtain personal information. They may advertise for information on the Internet, or hire a private detective. They often will monitor the victim's online activities and attempt to trace their IP address in an effort to gather more information about their victims.

Encouraging others to harass the victim. Many cyberstalkers try to involve third parties in the harassment. They may claim the victim has harmed the stalker or his/her family in some way, or may post the victim's name and telephone number in order to encourage others to join the pursuit.

False victimization. The cyberstalker will claim that the victim is harassing him/her. Bocij writes that this phenomenon has been noted in a number of well-known cases.

Attacks on data and equipment. They may try to damage the victim's computer by sending viruses.

Ordering goods and services. They order items or subscribe to magazines in the victim's name. These often involve subscriptions to pornography or ordering sex toys then having them delivered to the victim's workplace.

Arranging to meet. Young people face a particularly high risk of having cyberstalkers try to set up meetings between them.