With security personnel shielding him from the waiting media, Governor Patrick Alain T. Azanza last week posted bail of P48,000 for his provisional liberty after the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office filed a cyberlibel case against him with the Regional Trial Court.
The provincial chief executive dodged local journalists who had been waiting at the Virac RTC for hours, with his security unfolding a big umbrella in front of the media as Azanza scampered to the main building from the Hall of Justice.
Last June 3, 2026, Assistant City Prosecutor Peter Carlo P. David filed the information against Azanza before Quezon City RTC Branch 90, with the suit filed by Powerzone Petroleum Products Corporation, represented by Jeric O. Cua, docketed as Criminal Case No. 26-04924-CR for violation of Section 4 (C)(4) of Republic Act 10175 in relation to Articles 353 and 355 of the Revised Penal Code.
The information stated that on or about June 25, 2025 in Quezon City, the accused, “with malicious intent of impeaching the honor, virtue, character and reputation” of Powerzone, and “with evident intent of exposing the latter to public dishonor, discredit, contempt, and ridicule, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously post and publish in his official and public Facebook account “Patrick Azanza”, defamatory statements.
Said statements, it said, insinuated that Cua is engaged in manipulation of fuel supply using the previously held local position of his family in the province of Catanduanes, exposing Cua to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, to his damage and prejudice.
The complaint was filed by Cua, a resident of Quezon City, last Oct. 7, 2025 before the Office of the City Prosecutor.
At the outset, the complainant averred that records would show that through an agreement, Powerzone acts as a fuel storage and logistics facility in the province of Catanduanes for Unioil, which has a contract to supply fuel to Sunwest Water & Electric Co. (SUWECO), the main supplier of electricity to the First Catanduanes Electric Cooperative.
As separate entities with unrelated officers and owners, the suit maintained that Powerzone has no business relationship with SUWECO and it is not involved in any fuel pricing negotiations or sales between Unioil and SUWECO as the latter does not purchase fuel products from Powerzone.
But last July 25, 2025, respondent Azanza published several statements in his official and public Facebook page, directly and falsely claiming Powerzone is the supplier of fuel to SUWECO, the complaint claimed.
The statements, Cua stressed, were clearly made with the intent to mislead the public into believing that Powerzone is the direct fuel supplier of SUWECO, that it is owned by the former governor and vice-governor, that it is the cause of high cost of electricity in Catanduanes and that it is profiting at the expense of consumers by manipulating prices.
Worse, Cua pointed out, posted a copy of Powerzone’s General Information Sheet (GIS) for 2024 and wrongly imputed political bias, profit manipulation, and unethical behavior to the company, without evidence and in complete disregard of the actual business arrangement.
It cited as evidence the testimony of the SUWECO representative during the July 24, 2025 public hearing of the Committee on Energy of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan that its supplier is Unioil although it added that Unioil has an agreement with Powerzone with regards to the hauling of fuel, a fact that the respondent deliberately ignored in his post.
Also attached to the complaint were actual recordings of the SP committee meeting and a certification issued by Unioil that Powerzone acts only as a terminal and logistics/hauling contractor for Unioil, and has no authority or involvement in price setting or direct fuel sales to SUWECO.
In his defense, Azanza denied the allegations and asserted that the complaint lacked merit, claiming that the Facebook post was made in good faith and without defamatory intent.
In the resolution approved by City Prosecutor Vimar M. Barcellano, Assistant Coty Prosecutor David stated that all the elements of cyber libel – defamatory imputation, malice, identifiability and publicity through a computer system – are present in the case.
His post did not merely pose harmless neutral questions but categorically linked Powerzone to price manipulation and cunningly suggested that a politically connected family was benefiting at the expense of the public’s electricity rates, it said.
The respondent also demonstrated a reckless disregard for facts presented during the July 24, 2025 hearing of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
There is also no doubt that Powerzone was the subject of the statements and the post identified the corporation and the specific family background of its owners, it added.
Publicity through a computer system is undeniable, the resolution stated, with the remarks subsequently amplified by local media outlets like Radyo Peryodiko.