Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
National Prosecution Service
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
BAGUIO CITY

JESSA GUTIERREZ,​ ​ ​ ​ NPS Docket No.

​ ​ ​ Complainant.​ ​ 000-908-909

-versus-​ ​ ​ ​ ​
​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ For:​
JESUSA MIA,​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
Respondent.​​ ​ ALLEGED CYBER LIBEL

RESOLUTION

This resolves the complaint for Violation of Republic Act No. 10175, filed
by Jessa Gutierrez against Jesus Mia.

Version of the Complainant

​
​ According to the complainant Jessa Gutierrez, she is a Senior Shift
Head in Lupante Realty Co. Ltd, a company registered under the laws of the
Republic of the Philippines. She is married to Randolph Gutierrez and a
resident of Purok 20, Idogan Village, Upper Irisan, Baguio City, together
with their 3-year old baby girl named Sweet Gutierrez.

​ On April 15, 2025, April 19, 2025, and April 23, 2025, respondent
Jesusa Mia using his facebook meta verified account "Jesusa Mia" publicly
and maliciously posted several statements on his facebook meta account
against the complainant on the dates as indicated below;

i. On April 15, 2025, “Hoy @Jessa Gutierrez!! So sumakay ka sa

sasakyan ng asawa ko? At sa front seat ka pa talaga umopo noh?
Akala mo talaga do ki malalaman at Mahiya ka naman teh kababae
mong tao pero kerida ka! Sa lahat ng pwede mong ahasin yong asawa
ko pang higad ka. Tigilan mo ang asawa ko! Huwag mo gawin
pangkamot kapag kinakati ka. HAMPAS LUPA ka (angry emoji)”

ii. On April 19, 2025, the respondent publicly posted the following
statements: “Hoy @Jessa Gutierrez! Na maritess ko na hindi lang pala
 asawa ko ang nilalandi mo! Makating-makati yarn? Fetish mo pala
ang may-asawa? (laughing emoji) Tutuhugin mo ba mga lalaki sa
balat lupa at hindi ka na nilalambing ng asawa mo? Makakarama ka
sis in the future kasi may anak ka ding babae!”

iii. On April 23, 2025, the respondent publicly posted the following
statements: “So I heard na nabasa pala ng boss niyo sa work yong post
ko about sa kalandian mo. Huwag kang mag-alala itatag kita sa lahat
ng post ko @Jessa Gutierez everyday para araw-araw mong
maramdaman ang kahihiyan at para malaman din ng mga katrabaho
mong inaahas mo pati katrabaho mo. Pare-pareho kayong mga kabit
ang kakapal ng mukha!”

According to the Complainant, all the above posts were made using
the Respondent Mia’s verified facebook meta account on the above-stated
dates.

The foregoing malicious statements, all of which were set to “public,”

remain accessible online and continue to be viewable by anyone, which
resulted in wide circulation. These posts have subjected the Complainant to
repeated humiliation and emotional distress. Shortly after their publication,
members of her family, co-workers, clients, and friends reached out to
express concern, with many forwarding screenshots of the offensive content.

The Respondent’s repeated use of the terms “kabit,” “kerida,” and

“makating-makati” carried grave and defamatory implications—that the
Complainant was engaged in extramarital affairs with married men—despite
the absence of any factual basis, the only incident being when the
Complainant accepted a ride from Respondent’s husband along with
colleagues. These imputations unjustly tarnished the Complainant’s
reputation as a married woman, a mother, and a professional.

The injury caused by these posts was not confined to social

humiliation. The April 23, 2025 post, wherein the Respondent threatened to
tag the Complainant daily to ensure her co-workers would know of her
supposed misconduct, reached her colleagues and even her General
Manager, Ms. Kriza Inting. This resulted in direct inquiries regarding her
alleged involvement with Respondent’s husband and led to discomfort
within the Operations and Human Resources Departments of Lupante Realty
Co. Ltd. In fact, on July 10, 2025, Ms. Inting sent an email formally raising
the issue and warning that if the matter persisted, grievance proceedings
might be filed against the Complainant. Thus, the Respondent’s actions
jeopardized not only the Complainant’s dignity but also her employment and
professional standing.

Beyond her workplace, the Complainant’s parents and in-laws also

came across the posts, which deeply alarmed them and compelled them to
question the state of her marriage. Although her husband consistently denied
the allegations and defended her integrity, the mere existence of such public
insinuations caused strain and unnecessary scrutiny upon their family life.
The Complainant and her family are devout Christians who uphold moral
values, and the false imputations of infidelity directly undermined these
principles.

As a result of the Respondent’s malicious and defamatory acts, the

Complainant has suffered wounded feelings, sleepless nights, mental
anguish, besmirched reputation, and emotional trauma, all of which have
adversely affected her peace of mind, family life, and professional career.

Version of the Respondent

According to Respondent Jesusa Mia, she posted the statements on her

verified Facebook account because she believed them to be true. She
claimed that the Complainant, Jessa Gutierrez, allegedly engaged in intimate
and inappropriate conduct with her husband, Leo Mia, on multiple
occasions—such as during a ride home on February 14, 2025, visits to the
Respondent’s house, and interactions observed at the workplace. Based on
these alleged incidents, the Respondent maintained that the labels she used,
including “kabit” and “makating-makati,” were accurate reflections of the
Complainant’s behavior and therefore justified her posting them publicly.

The crime charged

The Complainant alleges that Respondent Jesusa Mia, owner of the

verified Facebook Meta account “Jesusa Mia,” committed the crime of cyber
libel in violation of Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of
2012).

Findings, Discussion and Conclusion

Going over the pieces of evidence presented, the Undersigned finds

the respondent Jesusa Mia liable for three (3) counts of Cyber libel in
relation to Republic Act 10175.

As defined under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, 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 dishonour, discredit, or contempt of a
natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead".

On the other hand, under Republic Act 10175 or the "Cybercrime

Prevention Act of 2012", it penalizes libellous statements made online.

A review of the posts made by respondent Jesusa Mia will show that
the elements of libel are present in all the posts, and the posting of this
statements in his verified facebook meta account makes the offense or act
punishable under Republic Act 10175 as these were libellous statements
made against the Complainants which were posted online.

A.​On April 15, 2025, the respondent publicly posted the following
statements: “Hoy @Jessa Gutierrez!! So sumakay ka sa
sasakyan ng asawa ko? At sa front seat ka pa talaga umopo
noh? Akala mo talaga do ki malalaman at Mahiya ka naman teh
kababae mong tao pero kerida ka! Sa lahat ng pwede mong
ahasin yong asawa ko pang higad ka. Tigilan mo ang asawa ko!
Huwag mo gawin pangkamot kapag kinakati ka. HAMPAS
LUPA ka (angry emoji)”

This post publicly accuses the Complainant of improper

conduct with the Respondent’s husband and employs highly
offensive language, including “HAMPAS LUPA.” The
statement was not only humiliating but also deeply wounding to
the Complainant’s sense of self-worth and dignity, exposing her
to public shame and scorn.

B.​ On April 19, 2025, the respondent publicly posted the following
statements: “Hoy @Jessa Gutierrez! Na maritess ko na hindi
lang pala asawa ko ang nilalandi mo! Makating-makati yarn?
Fetish mo pala ang may-asawa? (laughing emoji) Tutuhugin mo
ba mga lalaki sa balat lupa at hindi ka na nilalambing ng asawa
mo? Makakarama ka sis in the future kasi may anak ka ding
babae!”

This post accused the Complainant of engaging in extramarital

relationships with married men and falsely called into question
her moral character. The public dissemination of such claims
caused the Complainant profound emotional distress,
humiliation, and anxiety, particularly as it impugned her
integrity as a married woman and a mother. The statements also
threatened to erode the trust and respect she has painstakingly
built in her personal and professional life.
 C. On April 23, 2025, the respondent publicly posted the
following statements: “So I heard na nabasa pala ng boss niyo
sa work yong post ko about sa kalandian mo. Huwag kang
mag-alala itatag kita sa lahat ng post ko @Jessa Gutierez
everyday para araw-araw mong maramdaman ang kahihiyan at
para malaman din ng mga katrabaho mong inaahas mo pati
katrabaho mo. Pare-pareho kayong mga kabit ang kakapal ng
mukha!”

This post explicitly threatened to publicly shame the

Complainant in front of her colleagues on a daily basis, labeling
her as a “kabit” and subjecting her to ridicule, workplace
harassment, and emotional trauma. The cumulative effect of
these statements has caused her sleepless nights, anxiety, and
deep humiliation, undermining her confidence and tarnishing
her reputation both at work and in the wider community.

As defined by facebook meta, "a verified account means that

Facebook has confirmed the identity of the account owner,
typically a person, business, or organization. This is usually
signified by a blue checkmark next to the account name.
Verification helps identify users distinguish legitimate accounts
from impersonators and potentially unreliable sources."

The Respondent has never denied posting these statements,

maintaining that, in her view, the allegations are true.

The Supreme Court has held that, for truth to succeed as a defense, the
publication must be made in good faith and in the public interest, and not
merely to injure the person defamed. In this case, the posts appear to be
motivated by personal animosity rather than public interest, and the manner
of publication—repeated, publicly accessible, and directly tagging the
Complainant—indicates an intent to humiliate rather than inform, ensuring
maximum exposure to family, friends, colleagues, and the public.

The language used—terms such as “kabit” and

“makating-makati”—was derogatory and demeaning, clearly intended to
humiliate the Complainant. The timing, frequency, and nature of the posts
demonstrate that they were motivated by personal animosity, not public
interest. Even if portions were factually accurate, the manner and intent of
publication indicate malice, which negates truth as a defense under
Philippine jurisprudence. The posts therefore caused serious emotional
distress and reputational harm, exceeding any protection that truth might
offer.

Wherefore, premises considered, the Undersigned recommends that

the respondent Jesusa Mia be indicted for three (3) counts of Cyberlibel.

Done in the City of Baguio Philippines, this September 10, 2025.