Actress Jasmine Curtis-Smith has suffered a setback in her legal battle against lawyer and broadcaster Ferdinand Topacio after Makati prosecutors dismissed the three criminal complaints she filed over his controversial remarks about her.
The Makati City Prosecutor’s Office junked the complaints for cyberlibel, cyber unjust vexation and gender-based online sexual harassment under the Safe Spaces Act, citing insufficient evidence to establish a case with a reasonable certainty of conviction.
The dispute began after Topacio discussed Jasmine during the March 5 episode of his DWIZ program, “Yes Yes Yo Topacio,” which was also streamed on Facebook and YouTube.
Topacio had been defending Quezon City Rep. Jesus “Bong” Suntay following the lawmaker’s remarks about Jasmine’s older sister, actress and television host Anne Curtis, during a House hearing on the impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte.
Jasmine publicly criticized Suntay’s comments, prompting Topacio to question why the actress posted bikini photos online.
“Kayong mga artista—ikaw, Jasmine—bakit ka nagpo-post ng mga bikini pictures mo sa social media? Hindi ba para ikaw ay pagnasaan? Para ikaw ay sumikat? Huwag mo sabihing art ’yun. BS ’yan. Hindi kami mga ungas dito para maniwala sa’yo,” Topacio said during the broadcast.
The remarks immediately drew Jasmine’s ire.
“Yowwwww what the actual?????? What the!!!! Dugyot ka!” she wrote in response.
The actress later took the issue to prosecutors, alleging that Topacio’s statements were derogatory, circulated widely online and harmed her reputation.
Prosecutors, however, ruled that the remarks were made in the context of a public controversy involving Suntay, the Curtis sisters and the impeachment proceedings.
In dismissing the cyberlibel complaint, the prosecutor’s office reportedly treated Topacio’s statements as qualified privileged communication and said offensive language alone was not enough to prove actual malice.
“At most, respondent’s statements may have been sharp, insulting, or offensive. However, offensiveness alone does not equate to actual malice,” the resolution stated.
The cyber unjust vexation complaint was also dismissed, while prosecutors found that the evidence did not sufficiently show that Topacio’s remarks met the legal threshold for gender-based online sexual harassment.
The resolution said Jasmine failed to demonstrate how the lawyer’s statements went beyond offensiveness and amounted to conduct intended to cause the psychological or reputational harm covered by the law.
Following the dismissal, Topacio insisted that his remarks were not personally motivated.
“I wish to restate to Ms. Curtis-Smith that there was nothing personal in my utterances, but they were naught but part of legitimate political debate,” he said.
He added that his statements were part of a public exchange in which Jasmine had also participated as a citizen.
The dismissal of the complaints does not necessarily end the controversy surrounding Topacio’s remarks. Separate proceedings involving the lawyer and Suntay have also reached the Supreme Court, which ordered them to explain why they should not face disciplinary action over their public statements concerning Anne and Jasmine.