Ex-First Lady sues for $1 million  – gets $3,000

The First Superior Court Justice confirmed a sentence against Corporación La Prensa, SA ( Corprensa ), for a publication about Marta Linares de Martinelli, but reduced the amount claimed by the former first lady, from one million dollars to $3,000, by way of non-pecuniary damage.

Magistrates Miguel Espino (rapporteur), Yira Bernal and Juan Carlos Tatis, also sentenced Corprensa and the journalists Olmedo Rodríguez and José González Pinilla , to pay $750 in concept of costs.

Although the plaintiff claimed compensation of one million dollars, “it is considered that no material damage was proven,” says the ruling of magistrates Espino, Bernal and Tatis. Although it mentions that the news supposed a “deterioration” of the reputation of the plaintiff, the Court emphasizes that a breakdown was not provided on the distribution of damages and the amount demanded by each one, so it was not possible to determine what consists of the intended million dollars.

“Not even invoices were provided for the expenses for psychiatric medical care which the plaintiff had incurred,” the ruling mentions.

Nor can it be deduced from the opinions provided that the plaintiff suffered any economic damage as a result of the circulation of the news. “Even in her income tax returns, her income was higher than in previous years,” the magistrates said in their ruling.

The civil lawsuit is related to a note in English, published on February 11, 2016 on the website prensa.com, in which the investigation that Rafael Guardia Jaén , director of the National Aid Program (PAN) made that day, was reported about irregularities in the purchase of some Christmas bags that were destined for the first lady’s office. At that time, for this case, the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office requested to lift the criminal electoral jurisdiction of the former first lady.

On April 17, 2019, the Sixteenth Civil Circuit Court sentenced Corprensa, but rejected the compensation of one million dollars sought by the plaintiff. Instead, he ordered $25,000 in compensation and $6,000 in court costs. This decision was appealed by both parties, which resulted in the ruling of the First Court on June 24, which upheld the sentence, but reduced the compensation even more, this time to $3,000.

Judges Espino, Bernal and Tatis explained in their ruling why the amount claimed by the former first lady was reduced.

“Taking into account that pecuniary damage was not proven and that it is not admissible that compensation for moral damages become a source of unjust enrichment, as the Court has already stated in two rulings, this court considers that the sentence required by the plaintiff, such as the one imposed by the court of the first instance, exceeds the reality of what the evidence allows us to deduce in this case, ”says the ruling.

The magistrates also maintain that it was later known that the published information lacked truthfulness, but they recognize that the news published on February 11, 2016 does not contain any assessment or judgment about the former first lady.

Corprensa’s defense argued at all times that ” real malice ” of the publication or of the authors of the note could not be proven, a criterion that constitutes the parameter established by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to determine the civil responsibility of the media for their publications.

Previous action
It is not the only action taken by Marta Linares de Martinelli against Corprensa and its journalists. Earlier, she filed a “family protection” lawsuit, intended to prevent information about the judicial processes of former President Martinelli and the couple’s children ( Ricardo Alberto and Luis Enrique Martinelli Linares ), convicted in the United States for conspiring to launder bribes from Odebrecht.

On June 22, 2020, Judge Alba E. Flores Musmanno, head of the Second Sectional Family Court of the First Judicial Circuit, rejected the lawsuit, considering that the right to the image had not been violated, since what was disclosed by La Prensa was of public interest and had no connection with the intimate life of the Martinelli Linares family.