According to the sentence, the episode took place during the campaign for Mayor of SP in 2024; psolista initially asked for R$1 million, which was refused
The São Paulo Court sentenced Pablo Marçal to pay compensation of R$ 100 mil to Guilherme Boulos (PSOL-SP) for moral damages. The decision was motivated by dissemination of fake news associating Boulos with cocaine use during the campaign for São Paulo Mayor in 2024.
Although the psolista initially asked for R$1 million, the court set the value at R$100,000. However, in addition to the compensation, Marçal was ordered to pay the procedural costs and the lawyers’ feesset at 15% of the value of the sentence. The amount must be adjusted with interest from the date of the event (October 2024).
The sentence, handed down by judge Danilo Fadel de Castro, of the 10th Civil Court of the Central Court of São Paulo, concluded that Marçal “exceeded the limits of freedom of expression and political debate”, acting with the clear intention of “harm the opponent’s honor.”.
The central point of the process was the publication of a false medical report on Marçal’s social networks on the eve of the election, on October 4, 2024. The fabricated document attributed to Boulos a “severe psychotic break” resulting from the use of cocaine.
According to the sentence, examinations carried out by the Civil Police and the Federal Police confirmed that the document was a fraud. It was proven that the signature of the doctor who supposedly signed the report — and who was already deceased — was forged.
In addition to the document, the process mentions that Marçal carried out a defamatory campaign, using gestures (such as touching the nose) and derogatory nicknames such as “vacuum cleaner” and “smeller” in debates and on the internet, without presenting any evidence.
‘Calculated lie’
In his decision, the judge stated that it was not a political opinion or criticism, but rather the “cold and calculated fabrication of a documentary lie to deceive the electorate”. “The Judiciary will not tolerate the transformation of the political arena into fertile ground for crimes against honor and false documents,” he wrote.
Defense argument
In the process, Pablo Marçal’s defense argued that the case should be judged by the Electoral Court, and not by the Common Court, and claimed freedom of expression. Marçal also maintained that he received the document from a third party and had no role in the forgery. All arguments were rejected by the judge.
