Jack Argota Submits Counter-Affidavit in DOJ Cyber-Libel Case Over Alleged Fake Marcos Post
Online personality Jack Argota has taken a significant step in his legal battle by personally appearing at a preliminary investigation conducted by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Argota submitted a counter-affidavit in response to charges filed against him by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The case revolves around allegations of cyber-libel and unlawful publication, stemming from a controversial online post.
NBI Charges Under Cybercrime and Revised Penal Code
The NBI has accused Argota of violating Section 4(c)(4) of the Republic Act 10175, also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. This charge is specifically linked to cyber-libel. Additionally, he faces allegations of unlawful publication under Article 154 of the Revised Penal Code. These legal actions are connected to Argota's online posting of what is claimed to be a fake medical record of President Ferdinand 'Bongbong' Marcos Jr., which has sparked widespread attention and legal scrutiny.
Argota's Response and Cautious Stance
In an interview, Jack Argota confirmed that he filed a counter-affidavit with the prosecution but chose not to disclose its contents. He expressed a desire to avoid sharing further information, citing a need for caution to prevent additional legal issues. Argota emphasized his belief in the truthfulness of all statements made in his affidavit, asserting his confidence in the accuracy of his claims. Despite the serious nature of the charges, he has denied admitting to posting fake content online and has urged his supporters to continue trusting him during this challenging period.
The case highlights the ongoing tensions between online expression and legal boundaries in the digital age. As the DOJ proceeds with its investigation, the outcome could set important precedents for how cyber-libel and unlawful publication cases are handled in the Philippines. Argota's decision to personally engage in the legal process underscores the personal stakes involved, while the NBI's involvement reflects the government's commitment to enforcing cybercrime laws.
