Jay Sonza’s counsel questions legal ground of bail denial

Tempo Desk
2 Min Read
Veteran newsman Jay Sonza following his arrest by the NBI on Thursday, April 30. (Photo from NBI)

The camp of former broadcast journalist Jay Sonza has questioned the legality of denying him the opportunity to post bail in connection with the cyberlibel case filed against him for allegedly spreading false medical records of President Marcos.

Sonza’s legal counsel, lawyer Mark Tolentino, argued that the charge of “unlawful publication” under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and the Revised Penal Code is not punishable by life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua.

“Therefore, it is bailable as a matter of right,” Tolentino said in a Facebook post.

He was reacting to the arrest warrant issued by Branch 118 of the Regional Trial Court in Pasay City, which recommended no bail for Sonza’s release.

Sonza was arrested on Thursday night, April 30, at his house in Quezon City by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), in connection with criminal charges filed in February for allegedly disseminating false medical information about the President.

He was charged with Unlawful Use of Means of Publication and Unlawful Utterances (Article 154 of the Revised Penal Code), as amended by R.A. 10591, in relation to Section 6 of R.A. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

In a statement, the NBI said Sonza was among those responsible for circulating unverified and misleading medical information involving the President. The posts included a purported CT-scan report and claims of deteriorating health, which were widely shared online.

“Despite the deletion or restriction of original posts, the NBI preserved the evidence through digital forensic methods, including authenticated screenshots and tracking of reposted content,” the agency said.

“These materials formed part of the evidence submitted before the Department of Justice, which led to the filing of charges and the eventual issuance of the warrant,” it added.

Tolentino maintained that the decision to make the case non-bailable was a misapplication of the law. “We will act immediately to assert the right to post bail under the 1987 Constitution,” he said. (Aaron Recuenco)

Share This Article