The Criminal Court has accepted the defamation case against 'Poo Mantana' for repeatedly posting defamatory messages about 'Noom Kanchai' on Facebook. The defendant's statement will be heard on 8 June 2026. Lawyer Toi revealed that three of five cases have been accepted so far by the court.
At 10:00 a.m. on 27 Feb 2026, in courtroom 708 of the Criminal Court, the court held a hearing on the defamation case filed by Mr. Kanchai Kamnerdploy, a news anchor and well-known actor, against Ms. Mantana Himathongkham, also known as Poo Mantana, on charges of defamation by advertising. The case concerns Mantana's multiple defamatory posts about the plaintiff on her public Facebook account.
Upon preliminary examination, the court found that the defendant used her Facebook account between 22 Sep 2025 and the date of filing to post several public messages. Although these posts did not directly name the plaintiff, when viewed alongside other posts on her account, many commenters mentioned the plaintiff by name or referenced the show 'Hone Krasae' hosted by the plaintiff. This indicates the defendant intended to refer to the plaintiff. The posts damaged the plaintiff's reputation, social credibility, and professional standing as a journalist, possibly causing the public to lose respect for him. Additionally, the posts were insulting and defamatory. Since the messages were posted publicly with visibility set to 'public,' this constitutes defamation by advertising. The plaintiff's evidence supports the charges of defamation and contempt by advertising.
The case has merit under Sections 328 and 393 of the Criminal Code, and the court has accepted it for consideration.
The court scheduled the defendant's statement and evidence examination for 8 June 2026.
Later, Mr. Pornsak Wipasaphanont, the authorized lawyer, said after the court accepted the case that overall, the court viewed the messages as damaging the plaintiff's credibility as a journalist and insulting him. Therefore, the court set a date in June to hear the defendant's statement and review evidence. He said he submitted clear evidence showing that even without naming anyone, it was obvious who the defendant referred to.
Mr. Pornsak added that the Criminal Court has accepted three of the five criminal cases so far. One case is awaiting the defendant’s statement, after which there will be further proceedings. Another case is with the South Bangkok Criminal Court. All are defamation criminal cases. He confirmed that the cases are criminal suits without any civil claims for damages. He emphasized that the price for the defendant’s posts is the loss of the defendant’s own freedom.