11.07.2015 Views

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

9c) Identity of the person defamed; andd) Existence of malice.All of these elements are present in this case.First Element: Imputation of adiscreditable act or condition toanother28. Under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, there must be an“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.”29. As explained above, respondent, through the Press Release, imputedthat Mr. Okada and his companies, including complainant Tiger, UEC, andAruze, had engaged in corrupt activities with the gaming authority officials in thePhilippines:“Freeh’s investigators uncovered and documented more thanthree dozen instances over a three-year period in which Mr. Okadaand his associates engaged in improper activities for their ownbenefit in apparent violation of U.S. anti-corruption laws andgross disregard for the Company’s Code of Conduct. These troublingdiscoveries include cash payments and gifts totalingapproximately $110,000 to foreign gaming regulators.“‘Mr. Okada and his associates and companies appear tohave engaged in a longstanding practice of making paymentsand gifts to his two chief gaming regulators at the PhilippinesAmusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), who directlyoversee and regulated Mr. Okada’s Provisional Licensing Agreementto operate in that county,’ according to the Freeh Report. The reportfurther stated that Mr. Okada and his associates have ‘consciouslytaken active measures to conceal both the nature and amount ofthese payments.”30. Such imputations of corrupt activities are clearly discreditable anddishonorable. 4 They are an affront to the reputation, honor, and integrity of Mr.Okada, complainant Tiger, UEC and Aruze. Indeed, respondent’s imputationsare so dishonorable that some lawmakers were deeply offended and called for a4 See Daez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 47971, 31 October 1990, 191 SCRA 61, involving animputation of corruption.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!