Cyberlibel Under Philippine Laws
Cyberlibel in the Philippines is governed by Republic Act No. 10175, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which amended the Revised Penal Code (RPC) to include cyberlibel as a cybercrime under Section 4(c)(4). Cyberlibel is defined as the unlawful or prohibited act of libel, as outlined in Article 355 of the RPC, committed through a computer system or any similar means, such as social media, websites, or emails. Libel, as per Article 353 of the RPC, is the public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice, or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt to a person, whether a natural or juridical entity, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
Elements of Cyberlibel:
1. Defamatory Imputation: The statement must impute a discreditable act, crime, or condition that causes dishonor or contempt.
2. Malice: The imputation is presumed malicious (malice in law) unless the accused proves good intention and justifiable motive, or, for public figures, actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth) must be proven by the complainant.
3. Publication: The defamatory statement must be communicated to at least one third party, typically via online platforms.
4. Identifiability: The victim must be identifiable, either explicitly or by reasonable inference.
5. Use of a Computer System: The defamatory act must be committed through digital means, distinguishing cyberlibel from traditional libel.
Penalties:
Under Article 355 of the RPC, traditional libel is punishable by **prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods** (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months) or a fine ranging from PHP 40,000 to PHP 1,200,000, or both, as adjusted by RA 10951. Cyberlibel, under Section 6 of RA 10175, carries a penalty one degree higher, which is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods (6 years and 1 day to 8 years) or a fine, or both. Courts may impose a fine alone in lieu of imprisonment, as clarified in People v. Soliman (G.R. No. 252983, February 20, 2024), citing Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 08-2008.[](https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-for-online-libel-courts-may-impose-alternative-penalty-of-fine-instead-of-imprisonment/)
Prescriptive Periods for Cyberlibel and Ordinary Libel
The prescriptive period is the time within which a legal action for a crime must be filed, or the right to prosecute is lost. For both ordinary libel and cyberlibel, the prescriptive period has been a contentious issue, particularly due to differing interpretations of applicable laws. The Revised Penal Code (RPC) and the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175) provide the framework, with recent Supreme Court decisions, notably People v. Causing, clarifying the matter.
Ordinary Libel
Under Article 90, paragraph 4 of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 4661 (1966), the crime of libel or other similar offenses prescribes in **one year**. This period begins from the date of discovery by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, not necessarily from the date of publication, as libelous matter may be concealed or not immediately accessible. The discovery rule applies because it would be unreasonable to expect victims to initiate proceedings without prior knowledge of the defamatory act. The one-year period for ordinary libel is well-established and reflects the balance between protecting reputation and ensuring timely prosecution to avoid stale claims.[](https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2024/01/22/2327701/sc-prescription-period-cyber-libel-1-year-not-1215-years)[](https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/digest/causing-v-people-1)
Cyberlibel
The prescriptive period for cyberlibel was historically debated due to the higher penalty imposed by RA 10175, which led some courts to apply longer periods under Act No. 3326 (prescription for offenses under special laws) or the RPC’s provisions for afflictive penalties. Earlier rulings, such as
Tolentino v. People (G.R. No. 240310, August 6, 2018), suggested a 12-year or even 15-year prescriptive period for cyberlibel, arguing that the higher penalty (prision mayor) classified it as an afflictive offense under Article 90 of the RPC, which prescribes in 15 years for afflictive penalties. This interpretation was applied in high-profile cases, such as the conviction of Maria Ressa and Reynaldo Santos Jr. in 2020, where a Manila Regional Trial Court cited a 15-year period. (https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1891841/prescription-period-for-cyberlibel-is-1-year-supreme-court) (https://www.onenews.ph/in-2018-sc-ruled-filing-of-cyber-libel-can-be-done-within-15-years-but-is-this-binding)
(https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/people-of-the-philippines-v-santos-ressa-and-rappler/)
However, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in People v. Causing (G.R. No. 258524, October 11, 2023) definitively resolved the issue, aligning the prescriptive period for cyberlibel with that of ordinary libel. Below is a detailed discussion of this case and its implications, alongside other relevant rulings.
Landmark Supreme Court Decision:
People v. Causing (G.R. No. 258524, October 11, 2023)
- Facts: Berteni Catalua Causing, a disbarred lawyer, was charged with two counts of cyberlibel under Section 4(c)(4) of RA 10175, in relation to Articles 353 and 355 of the RPC, by former South Cotabato Representative Ferdinand Ledesma Hernandez. Hernandez filed a complaint on December 16, 2020, alleging that Causing posted defamatory statements on Facebook on February 4, 2019, and April 29, 2019, falsely accusing him of misappropriating public funds for Marawi siege victims. Causing filed a motion to quash, arguing that the one-year prescriptive period for libel under Article 90 of the RPC applied to cyberlibel, and the charges were filed beyond this period. The Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion, citing a 12-year prescriptive period under Act No. 3326, as cyberlibel was considered a distinct offense with a higher penalty. Causing elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari.[](https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/digest/causing-v-people-1)[](https://digitalpolicyalert.org/event/23271-issued-ruling-in-lawsuit-concerning-cyber-libel-causing-v-people)
- Issues:
1. What is the prescriptive period for cyberlibel?
2. Should the period be based on Article 90 of the RPC (one year) or Act No. 3326 (12 years) or the RPC’s afflictive penalty provision (15 years)?
3. When does the prescriptive period commence?
- Ruling: The Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, denied Causing’s petition for lack of merit, affirming the RTC’s refusal to quash the charges, as prescription is a matter of defense requiring evidence presentation at trial. However, the Court clarified the prescriptive period for cyberlibel, overturning the Tolentino doctrine. Key points:
- Cyberlibel is Not a New Crime: The Court reiterated its ruling in Disini v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014), stating that cyberlibel is not a distinct offense but the same libel under Articles 353 and 355 of the RPC, committed through a computer system as a “similar means” of publication. Section 4(c)(4) of RA 10175 does not create a new crime but merely qualifies the medium, with the higher penalty as an aggravating circumstance.[](https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2024/01/22/2327701/sc-prescription-period-cyber-libel-1-year-not-1215-years)[](https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/digest/causing-v-people-1)[](https://conventuslaw.com/report/philippines-cyber-libel-same-old-crime-and-prescriptive-period/)
- One-Year Prescriptive Period: The Court ruled that the prescriptive period for cyberlibel is one year, as provided under Article 90, paragraph 4 of the RPC for “libel or other similar offenses.” This prevails over Act No. 3326 (12 years for special laws) or the 15-year period for afflictive penalties, as the specific provision for libel takes precedence. The Court emphasized that RA 10175 did not establish a different prescriptive period, and the shorter period, being more favorable to the accused, must apply.[](https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2024/01/22/2327701/sc-prescription-period-cyber-libel-1-year-not-1215-years)[](https://www.divinalaw.com/dose-of-law/cyber-libel-same-old-crime-and-prescriptive-period/)[](https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1891841/prescription-period-for-cyberlibel-is-1-year-supreme-court)
- Discovery Rule: The one-year period begins from the date the offended party discovers the defamatory statement, not necessarily the publication date, unless discovery and publication coincide. In this case, Hernandez filed the complaint shortly after discovering the posts, within the one-year period.[](https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/explainers/supreme-court-decision-clarifications-cyber-libel/)[](https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/digest/causing-v-people-1)
- Overturning Tolentino: The Court abandoned the Tolentino v. People resolution, which applied a 12-year or 15-year period, noting that it was an unsigned resolution with limited doctrinal value and inconsistent with the RPC’s specific provision for libel.[](https://www.onenews.ph/in-2018-sc-ruled-filing-of-cyber-libel-can-be-done-within-15-years-but-is-this-binding)[](https://conventuslaw.com/report/philippines-cyber-libel-same-old-crime-and-prescriptive-period/)
- Impact: The Causing decision harmonized the prescriptive periods for ordinary libel and cyberlibel, resolving prior inconsistencies. It has significant implications for pending cases, such as that of Maria Ressa, where a 15-year period was applied. Legal experts, including retired Justice Antonio Carpio, have argued that the one-year period aligns with the principle that laws more favorable to the accused should prevail.[](https://www.rappler.com/philippines/263987-law-experts-12-year-prescription-period-cyber-libel-unconsitutional/)
Other Relevant Cases on Prescriptive Periods
1. Disini v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014):
- The Court upheld the constitutionality of cyberlibel under RA 10175, clarifying that it is not a new crime but an extension of RPC libel committed online. While the case did not directly address prescription, it laid the foundation for *Causing* by affirming that cyberlibel shares the same legal framework as ordinary libel, including its prescriptive period.[](https://www.lawyer-philippines.com/articles/understanding-cyber-libel-under-philippine-law-a-comprehensive-guide)
2. People v. Soliman (G.R. No. 252983, February 20, 2024):
- While primarily addressing penalties, this case clarified that courts may impose a fine instead of imprisonment for cyberlibel, citing the RPC’s use of the disjunctive “or” in Article 355. This ruling indirectly supports the *Causing* decision by treating cyberlibel as aligned with ordinary libel’s legal framework, including prescription.[](https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-for-online-libel-courts-may-impose-alternative-penalty-of-fine-instead-of-imprisonment/)
3. Tolentino v. People (G.R. No. 240310, August 6, 2018) (Overturned):
- This unsigned resolution applied a 12-year or 15-year prescriptive period for cyberlibel, based on the higher penalty (prision mayor) being an afflictive penalty under Article 90 of the RPC or Act No. 3326. The Causing decision explicitly overturned this, citing its lack of binding precedent and inconsistency with the RPC’s specific one-year rule for libel.[](https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1891841/prescription-period-for-cyberlibel-is-1-year-supreme-court)[](https://www.onenews.ph/in-2018-sc-ruled-filing-of-cyber-libel-can-be-done-within-15-years-but-is-this-binding)[](https://conventuslaw.com/report/philippines-cyber-libel-same-old-crime-and-prescriptive-period/)
Key Differences and Rationale
- Ordinary Libel:
Prescribes in one year under Article 90 of the RPC, a rule unchanged since RA 4661 (1966) reduced it from two years to one year to balance timely prosecution with fairness to the accused.
- Cyberlibel:
Previously subject to debate, with courts applying 12 or 15 years due to the higher penalty. Causing clarified that the one-year period applies, as cyberlibel is not a distinct crime but a qualified form of libel under the RPC.
- Rationale: The Supreme Court emphasized that RA 10175 does not alter the prescriptive period for libel, and the specific provision in Article 90 (one year) prevails over general rules for afflictive penalties or special laws. The discovery rule ensures fairness, as online content may remain accessible long after publication, but victims must act promptly upon discovery.[](https://www.divinalaw.com/dose-of-law/cyber-libel-same-old-crime-and-prescriptive-period/)[](https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/digest/causing-v-people-1)
Current Status
As of April 2025, the one-year prescriptive period for both ordinary libel and cyberlibel is the prevailing rule, following Causing. However, ongoing debates, such as in Walden Bello’s petition (filed December 5, 2023), challenge the criminalization of libel itself, arguing that it violates free speech under the 1987 Constitution. While Bello’s case seeks decriminalization, it does not directly address prescription but highlights the broader tension between libel laws and freedom of expression.[](https://www.rappler.com/philippines/walden-bello-files-decriminalize-libel-case-supreme-court/)
Three Landmark Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Cyberlibel
1. Disini v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014)
- Facts: Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of RA 10175, including Section 4(c)(4) on cyberlibel, arguing it violated freedom of expression due to its chilling effect.
- Issues:
- Is cyberlibel under RA 10175 constitutional?
- Does it unduly restrict freedom of speech?
- Ruling:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of cyberlibel, ruling that it is not a new crime but the same libel under the RPC, with a computer system as the medium of publication. The Court struck down other provisions (e.g., unsolicited commercial communications) but found cyberlibel to be a reasonable restriction on free speech, provided malice is proven or presumed. This case laid the groundwork for Causing by affirming that cyberlibel shares the same legal framework, including prescription, as ordinary libel.[](https://www.lawyer-philippines.com/articles/understanding-cyber-libel-under-philippine-law-a-comprehensive-guide)
2. Tulfo v. People (G.R. No. 161032, September 16, 2008)
- Facts:
Journalist Erwin Tulfo published articles online accusing a Bureau of Customs official of corruption. The official filed a libel case, claiming defamation. Tulfo argued that his statements were privileged and made in good faith as part of journalistic duty.
- Issues:
- Were the online publications libelous?
- Were Tulfo’s statements protected by freedom of the press?
- Ruling:
The Supreme Court acquitted Tulfo, finding that his statements were made in good faith and in the public interest, given the official’s public role. The Court applied the actual malice standard from New York Times v. Sullivan, requiring public officials to prove knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. This case underscores the defense of privileged communication in cyberlibel cases involving public interest.[](https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/people-of-the-philippines-v-santos-ressa-and-rappler/)
3. Santos v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 201405, March 20, 2019)
- Facts:
The petitioner posted defamatory remarks on social media accusing a private individual of fraud. The victim filed a cyberlibel case, and the petitioner argued that the posts were private and not intended for public dissemination.
- Issues:
- Do social media posts constitute cyberlibel?
- Is the element of publication satisfied online?
- Ruling:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that social media posts satisfy the publication requirement due to their accessibility to third parties. The Court found no evidence of truth or good faith, confirming malice. This case clarified that the public nature of online platforms amplifies the harm of defamatory statements, justifying cyberlibel’s application.[](https://www.lawyer-philippines.com/articles/understanding-cyber-libel-under-philippine-law-a-comprehensive-guide)
Prosecuting and Trying Cyberlibel as a Public Prosecutor
As a public prosecutor, prosecuting cyberlibel requires a systematic approach to establish the elements of the crime and address the prescriptive period, especially post-Causing. Key steps include:
1. Preliminary Investigation:
- Evidence Collection: Gather digital evidence (e.g., screenshots, URLs, metadata, timestamps) and affidavits from the complainant and witnesses to prove defamation, malice, publication, identifiability, and use of a computer system.
- Prescription Check: Verify that the complaint was filed within one year from the complainant’s discovery of the defamatory post, as clarified in Causing. Ensure evidence of discovery (e.g., date the victim accessed the post) is documented. [](https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2024/01/22/2327701/sc-prescription-period-cyber-libel-1-year-not-1215-years)[](https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/digest/causing-v-people-1)
- Jurisdiction and Venue: File the case in a Regional Trial Court (RTC) designated as a cybercrime court, typically where the complainant resides or where the material was accessed (Section 21, RA 10175). [](https://www.lawyer-philippines.com/articles/understanding-cyber-libel-under-philippine-law-a-comprehensive-guide)
2. Filing the Information:
- Draft an information specifying the elements of cyberlibel under RA 10175 and Articles 353–355 of the RPC, including the date of discovery to address prescription.
- Ensure compliance with the one-year prescriptive period, as failure to file within this period can lead to dismissal.
3. Trial Strategy:
- Prove Elements:
Present evidence for each element:
- Defamation:
Show how the statement caused reputational harm.
- Malice:
For private individuals, rely on presumed malice; for public figures, prove actual malice.
- Publication: Demonstrate that the post was accessible to third parties (e.g., social media visibility).
- Identifiability:
Establish that the victim was identifiable.
- Computer System: Confirm the use of digital platforms.
- Digital Forensics: Use experts to authenticate electronic evidence under the Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC).
- Counter Defenses: Anticipate defenses like truth, privilege, or lack of malice, and rebut with evidence of falsity or intent.
4. Courtroom Presentation:
- Present witnesses to testify on the harm caused and the context of discovery.
- Use certified digital evidence to ensure admissibility.
- Argue for the higher penalty under RA 10175 or a fine, citing Soliman for flexibility in sentencing. [](https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-for-online-libel-courts-may-impose-alternative-penalty-of-fine-instead-of-imprisonment/)
5. Coordination: Work with the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group or NBI Cybercrime Division to secure warrants and preserve evidence.
Defending an Accused in a Cyberlibel Case as Defense Counsel
As defense counsel, the goal is to challenge the prosecution’s case, leverage the one-year prescriptive period, and assert valid defenses. Strategies include:
1. Challenge the Elements:
- Defamation:
Argue that the statement was not defamatory or was an opinion, not a fact.
- Malice:
For private individuals, prove good faith; for public figures, show the absence of actual malice.
- Publication:
If the post was private (e.g., restricted group), argue lack of public dissemination.
- Identifiability:
If the victim is not clearly identified, argue that the imputation does not apply.
2. Prescription Defense:
- Invoke the one-year prescriptive period under Causing, arguing that the complaint was filed beyond one year from the victim’s discovery. Require the prosecution to prove the discovery date. If the post was public and accessible, argue that discovery should have occurred earlier. [](https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2024/01/22/2327701/sc-prescription-period-cyber-libel-1-year-not-1215-years)[](https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/digest/causing-v-people-1)
- File a motion to quash if the information shows the case was filed outside the prescriptive period.
3. Substantive Defenses:
- Truth:
Under Article 354 of the RPC, truth is a defense if published for a good motive and justifiable purpose (e.g., exposing public misconduct). [](https://www.lawyer-philippines.com/articles/understanding-cyber-libel-under-philippine-law-a-comprehensive-guide)
- Privileged Communication:
Argue that the statement is privileged, such as fair comment on public interest matters (Tulfo v. People) or qualified privilege (e.g., complaints to authorities). [](https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/people-of-the-philippines-v-santos-ressa-and-rappler/)[](http://www.mabgslaw.com.ph/site/article/some-defenses-in-libel-suits)
- Freedom of Expression: Assert constitutional protection for speech, especially on public issues, citing Disini and Tulfo. [](https://www.lawyer-philippines.com/articles/understanding-cyber-libel-under-philippine-law-a-comprehensive-guide)
4. Challenge Evidence:
- Question the authenticity of digital evidence if it lacks proper certification or chain of custody under the Rules on Electronic Evidence.
- Argue that the accused did not author the post (e.g., hacked account or third-party posting).
5. Mitigation:
If conviction is likely, present mitigating circumstances (e.g., apology, retraction, good faith) to reduce penalties or argue for a fine instead of imprisonment, per Soliman. [](https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-for-online-libel-courts-may-impose-alternative-penalty-of-fine-instead-of-imprisonment/)
Civil Liability Aspect of Cyberlibel
Cyberlibel entails both criminal and civil liabilities, with the latter addressing the harm to the victim’s reputation, honor, or feelings under Article 355 in relation to Article 2219 of the Civil Code.
1. Nature of Civil Liability:
- Independent Civil Action: Under Article 33 of the Civil Code, victims may file a separate civil action for damages, independent of the criminal case, for defamation.
- Civil Liability in Criminal Case: Unless reserved, civil liability is included in the criminal case, with courts awarding damages upon conviction.
2. Types of Damages:
- *Moral Damages: For mental anguish, besmirched reputation, or social humiliation (Article 2217, Civil Code). Amounts vary based on harm and the victim’s status, as seen in Santos v. Court of Appeals. [](https://www.lawyer-philippines.com/articles/understanding-cyber-libel-under-philippine-law-a-comprehensive-guide)
- Exemplary Damages: Awarded if the act was committed with gross malice to deter similar conduct (Article 2229, Civil Code).
- Actual Damages:
For proven financial losses (e.g., lost income due to reputational harm) (Article 2199, Civil Code).
- Attorney’s Fees and Costs:
Recoverable if justified.
3. Quantification:
Courts have discretion, guided by evidence of harm. In Yuchengco v. Manila Chronicle (G.R. No. 184315, August 28, 2008), damages were awarded for defamatory articles labeling the complainant a “Marcos crony,” emphasizing reputational harm. [](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/50949)
4. Joint and Several Liability:
Co-authors or reposters may be jointly liable for damages.
5. Mitigation:
Prompt retractions or apologies can reduce damages, as courts may consider these in assessing moral damages. [](https://www.lawyer-philippines.com/articles/libel-laws-in-the-philippines-key-points)
Conclusion
Cyberlibel under Philippine law, as clarified by People v. Causing, is not a distinct crime but an extension of ordinary libel under the RPC, committed through digital means, with a one-year prescriptive period for both, starting from the date of discovery. This ruling overturned earlier doctrines like Tolentino, which applied longer periods, ensuring consistency and fairness to the accused. Prosecutors must act swiftly within the one-year period and prove all elements, including malice, using authenticated digital evidence. Defense counsel can leverage the prescriptive period, challenge evidence, or assert defenses like truth or privilege. Civil liability, whether pursued independently or within the criminal case, addresses reputational harm through moral, exemplary, and actual damages. Landmark cases like Disini, Tulfo, and Santos highlight the balance between protecting reputation and upholding free speech in the digital age, with Causing providing critical clarity on prescription.[](https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2024/01/22/2327701/sc-prescription-period-cyber-libel-1-year-not-1215-years)[](https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/digest/causing-v-people-1)[](https://conventuslaw.com/report/philippines-cyber-libel-same-old-crime-and-prescriptive-period/)
Generated by Grok AI app, July 4, 2025, upon request of Atty. Manuel Laserna Jr.
