43. However, the judgment also noted that “a harmful action” had been constituted which, although it was not a criminal act, had “given rise to civil liability caused directly by the publication in a written medium of a false fact that was discrediting and injurious.” 42 In particular, the Trial Court considered that the said publication had “falsely attributed” to J.C.T.R. that he was being investigated for the alleged perpetration of an offense of extortion linked to liquor contraband activities, when the reality was that he was being investigated, as of August 2005, for the offense of extortion, subsequently reclassified as bribery. 43 Thus, the said court noted that when the article was published in December 2005, “no criminal or administrative case was being processed [against J.C.T.R.] for an offense of ‘extortion’ related to liquor contraband [...]; but merely with regard to a vehicle and an individual who should have been referred to the customs and immigration [authorities] and, apparently, an undue charge and payment occurred.” 44 44. The Trial Court “rejected the objection based on [the] truth argued by all the defendants’ representatives,” 45 in the understanding that the case to which the said article referred bore no relationship “whatsoever” to liquor contraband, a charge that, according to the said court, constituted “an extremely serious accusation,” 46 of an “injurious, defamatory and offensive” nature. 47 This entailed “serious” moral harm to J.C.T.R., affecting his “objective and subjective honor,” resulting in “harm and disrepute in the workplace” and vis-à-vis “subordinates, family and community.” 48 It also considered that, in that case, there had been a “serious error and lack of due care,” as well as negligence 49 by the three defendants 50 and that the erratum that was published on February 9, 2006, failed to correct “the serious assertion” that a case was pending against J.C.T.R. for extortion related to contraband liquor. 51 The Trial Court added that the journalists Moya Chacón and Parrales Chaves should have made further verifications of the sources and the story, “for example, consulting the Judiciary’s Press Office to confirm the details of the criminal case.” 52 45. Accordingly, the Trial Court decided to declare the civil action for damages admissible and, consequently, sentenced, as jointly and severally liable, Freddy Parrales 42 Cf. Second Circuit Criminal Court of San José, Goicoechea, Judgment of January 10, 2007 (evidence file, folio 20). 43 Cf. Second Circuit Criminal Court of San José, Goicoechea, Judgment of January 10, 2007 (evidence file, folio 13). 44 Cf. Second Circuit Criminal Court of San José, Goicoechea, Judgment of January 10, 2007 (evidence file, folios 7 and 8). 45 Cf. Second Circuit Criminal Court of San José, Goicoechea, Judgment of January 10, 2007 (evidence file, folio 14). 46 Cf. Second Circuit Criminal Court of San José, Goicoechea, Judgment of January 10, 2007 (evidence file, folio 13). Cf. Second Circuit Criminal Court of San José, Goicoechea, Judgment of January 10, 2007 (evidence file, folio 14). 47 48 Cf. Second Circuit Criminal Court of San José, Goicoechea, Judgment of January 10, 2007 (evidence file, folios 14, 16 and 21). 49 Cf. Second Circuit Criminal Court of San José, Goicoechea, Judgment of January 10, 2007 (evidence file, folio 21). 50 Cf. Second Circuit Criminal Court of San José, Goicoechea, Judgment of January 10, 2007 (evidence file, folio 17). 51 Cf. Second Circuit Criminal Court of San José, Goicoechea, Judgment of January 10, 2007 (evidence file, folio 19). Cf. Second Circuit Criminal Court of San José, Ruling of September 28, 2009 (evidence file, folios 19 and 21). 52 14