[] RTC could’ve proceeded with arraignment and trial despite DOJ dismissal.
[] Court dismissal though is “without prejudice,” meaning it ”can be re-filed when the error is fixed.”
--- August 18, 2026: Cebu City Regional Trial Court Branch 12, in an order signed by Presiding Judge Estela Alma A. Singco-Caruso, approved the withdrawal of the case and its dismissal. The warrant of arrest was lifted and set aside, the bail bond cancelled and released.
The case is ended but “without prejudice to other remedies” under the law. Meaning, it is ended “temporarily and can be filed again in the future, after the error is fixed.”
--- July 6, 2026: Department of Justice (DOJ) dismissed for “lack of probable cause” the complaint of Lovie F. Uy. Two elements of libel were absent, DOJ said: Uy was not identified and Mabatid had no malice.
--- June 26, July 16, 2026: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cebu City had set the arraignment of Mabatid on those two dates and she failed to appear in both. She would’ve a reason to skip the second date. Ten days earlier, DOJ had already dismissed the complaint.
It was not ascertained if the RTC ever issued a bench warrant after she snubbed the arraignment twice. Mabatid has denied the court did.
--- February 26, 2026: Cebu City Prosecutor’s Office charged
Mabatid with cyber-libel for the Aug. 23, 2025 broadcast on her Facebook account, which, among others, alluded that Uy was a “social climber,” “person who misappropriated funds,” “delinquent debtor,” and “a thief who steals from friends.”
--- April 20, 2026: Mabatid appealed to DOJ after the prosecutor’s office denied her motion for reconsideration.
Which the prosecutor’s office had rejected: the issues on identifiability and malice, two elements of the crime, along with two others, defamation and publication.
City prosecutors believed Mabatid clearly identified Uy. “No doubt about the identity of Uy as the person libeled,” the fiscal’s ruling said when it indicted Nina.
DOJ didn’t believe she did and didn’t agree with Cebu City prosecutors that was identified. The “Love Oy” is just a term of endearment, like the Cebuano-Bisaya “palangga,” DOJ ruled.
DOJ accepted Mabatid’s professed good motive in calling Uy names in the former councilor’s FB post. DOJ concurred with Nina that it was made “from a perceived moral and social duty to warn others based on (Nina’s) experiences and observations.” Apparently, DOJ didn’t consider the context of bad blood between the two: former friends, former campaign manager-campaign boss, and the two women’s running feud.
Related: Seares: DOJ just cleared Nina Mabatid of cyber-libel
Seares: Ex-councilor Nina Mabatid’s defense to libel
The Cebu City RTC made it clear in its ruling: “Once an information has been filed in court, its disposition rests within the sound discretion of the Court.”
Aside from the clashing interpretations-findings of the local prosecutors and DOJ on identifiability and malice, there’s the explanation of the RTC judge on why she has decided to dismiss the case.
Judge Singco-Caruso’s order devoted four of five pages to making it explicitly clear that:
--- The court has discretion and power to continue or end the proceeding on the Mabatid case;
--- Judge Singco-Caruso said she reviewed the information, records of the preliminary investigation; the city prosecutor’s order and resolution; material parts of the Facebook broadcast; Messenger messages; affidavits of the parties and witnesses; and pleadings before the court. She had read it before, then issued the warrant of arrest.
--- The judge said she found it unnecessary, for her order of dismissal, to determine and make “definitive finding” on each of the disputed elements: the issues of identifiability and malice.
--- Her review, the judge said, led to the conclusion that the “evidentiary basis” that supported the prosecutors’ indictment of Mabatid “no longer sufficiently sustains the belief necessary to require her to undergo trial.” In other words, “wa nay probable cause, nga diha niadto.”
--- She cautioned in the order that she’s not “resolving credibility” as it would’ve been done if there were a trial,
or “determining truth or falsity of the imputations or the authenticity of the electronic communications…”
… When Judge Singco-Caruso studied the case prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest against Mabatid.
The warrant “cannot be void or unjustified on the materials then considered,” the judge said. “Neither does it reverse that determination merely because DOJ subsequently reached a different conclusion.”
After the DOJ ruling, the RTC’s appreciation of the presence of probable cause changed. Had it not shifted,
it would’ve proceeded with the arraignment and trial.
And Niña Mabatid couldn’t smile broadly and thumbing her nose now at Lovie Uy and accomplices who allegedly instigated the ex-“palangga” to sue.