The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated that the crime of cyber libel prescribes in one year from the time the alleged defamatory online post is discovered by the offended party.
In a resolution written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting and made public last April 20, the SC said that under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), written libel prescribes in one year.
It pointed out that there is no law that excludes cyber libel from the one-year prescription period, and Congress has consistently treated libel as having a shorter prescriptive period than other crimes, even when penalties are increased.
It stressed that while the Cybercrime Prevention Act under Republic Act No. 10175 imposes a higher penalty for cyber libel, it does not imply that the prescriptive period should be extended beyond that of traditional libel.
Thus, it emphasized that since the RPC sets a one-year prescriptive period for cyber libel, it prevails over the 15-year prescription period under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, and the prescription period begins upon discovery of the offense not upon publication.
With the reiteration, the SC denied the separate motions for reconsideration filed by Berteni Cataluna Causing and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
In December 2020, a cyber libel complaint was filed by Cotabato 2nd District Rep. Ferdinand L. Hernandez against Causing, who, in his Facebook posts, accused the former of reportedly pocketing P200 million in relief goods.
In his complaint, Hernandez said that he discovered Causing’s posts on Feb. 4 and April 29, 2019. Cyber libel case was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Causing in May 2021.
Causing filed a motion to dismiss the case. He argued that the case was already time-barred under the RPC since more than one year had passed since the posts were uploaded.
But the RTC denied Causing’s motion and ruled that cyber libel prescribes in 12 years under the Cybercrime Prevention Act.
Causing’s appeal to the SC was denied. The SC ruled that the prescriptive period for cyber libel is one year from the date of discovery, consistent with traditional libel under the RPC.
Both Causing and the OSG filed separate motions for reconsideration.
The OSG told the SC that the one-year prescriptive period for traditional libel under the RPC should not apply to cyber libel.
Instead, the OSG alleged that the prescription period should be 15 years under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, as previously decided by the SC through an unsigned resolution in a previous case.
Causing told the SC that the prescription for cyber libel should start from the publication date rather than from discovery as he pointed out that online posts are more widespread than traditional forms of publication.
The SC rejected both arguments. Specifically, the SC rejected the idea that an online publication automatically implies the offended party is presumed to have seen the post.
It said that unlike documents recorded in a public registry, social media posts are not always accessible because their visibility depends on privacy settings, internet access, and social media connections.
It also said that its earlier ruling in Tolentino v. People, which stated that cyber libel prescribes in 15 years, is not binding on Causing since it was an unsigned resolution that binds only the parties involved and does not apply to third persons.
Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, in his concurring opinion, said that that the one-year prescription period should apply only to libel cases against private individuals.
Leonen also said that libel against public figures should be decriminalized, as punishing comments and criticisms directed at public officials discourages free and uninhibited discussion about how those in public office conduct themselves.
In his concurring opinion, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa stressed that the prescriptive period for libel has always been fixed at one or two years, never at 10 or more years.
Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr. agreed with the majority that unsigned resolutions do not lay down doctrines of law. However, he disagreed on the prescriptive period for libel, stating that traditional libel and cyber libel are separate crimes. He said that libel committed through computer systems is punished under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, and the one-year prescriptive period for traditional libel does not apply.
Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando, Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, Ricardo R. Rosario, Jhosep Y. Lopez, Japar B. Dimaampao, and Raul B. Villanueva joined Justice Kho’s dissent.
