TL;DR

The Supreme Court ruled that a Facebook post made in 2011, before the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, cannot be prosecuted as cyber libel under the Revised Penal Code. The Court emphasized that criminal laws cannot be applied retroactively if they are unfavorable to the accused. This means individuals are not criminally liable for online libel if the act occurred before cyber libel was explicitly defined and penalized by law. However, individuals may still face civil liability for defamatory online posts, even if made before the Cybercrime Act.

Pre-Cybercrime Postings: Was Facebook Libel in 2011 a Crime?

This case revolves around a Facebook post from August 3, 2011, where Jannece Peñalosa allegedly defamed Jose Ocampo, Jr. The post contained harsh insults and accusations. An information for libel was filed against Peñalosa. However, the Department of Justice later directed the withdrawal of the information, arguing that “internet libel” was not yet a crime in 2011, as the Cybercrime Prevention Act was enacted in 2012. The trial court initially agreed, dismissing the case, but the Court of Appeals reversed this, stating that libel via Facebook was punishable under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, which covers libel by “similar means” to writing.

The central legal question became whether posting libelous content on Facebook in 2011, before the Cybercrime Prevention Act, constituted criminal libel under the Revised Penal Code. This hinged on whether Article 355’s “similar means” could be interpreted to include online platforms like Facebook, even before the digital age was explicitly addressed in legislation. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Peñalosa, reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstating the trial court’s dismissal.

The Supreme Court first addressed a procedural issue: whether Ocampo, as the private complainant, had the right to appeal the trial court’s order dismissing the case. The Court clarified that in criminal cases, only the State, represented by the Solicitor General, can appeal the criminal aspect of a dismissal or acquittal. Private complainants are limited to appealing the civil aspect. Since Ocampo’s petition sought the continuation of the criminal case, he lacked the legal standing to file a Petition for Certiorari. The proper remedy against the trial court’s order granting the Motion to Withdraw Information was an appeal, which should have been initiated by the State, not a private individual like Ocampo.

Moving to the substantive issue of whether the Facebook post was punishable, the Supreme Court analyzed Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code alongside Section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act. Article 355 lists “writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means” as mediums for libel. The Court applied the principle of noscitur a sociis, which dictates that ambiguous words should be interpreted in light of associated words. The listed means in Article 355, all pre-digital technologies, suggested that “similar means” at the time of the Revised Penal Code’s enactment in 1932 did not contemplate online platforms.

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 explicitly included “computer systems or any other similar means which may be devised in the future” in its definition of cyber libel, as stated in Section 4(c)(4).

SECTION 4. Cybercrime Offenses. — The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable under this Act: … (c) Content-related Offenses: … (4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.

The Court reasoned that if Article 355 already covered cyber libel, the enactment of Section 4(c)(4) would be superfluous. The need for new legislation indicated that cyber libel was considered a distinct, newly punishable form of libel. Applying Article 355 retroactively to acts committed before the Cybercrime Act would violate the principle of retroactivity of penal laws, which mandates that penal laws cannot be applied retroactively if they are unfavorable to the accused. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege – there is no crime when there is no law punishing it. Therefore, since Peñalosa’s Facebook post predated the Cybercrime Act, it could not be criminally prosecuted as cyber libel under Article 355.

The Supreme Court emphasized that while criminal liability was not applicable, Ocampo was not without recourse. He could still pursue a civil action for damages under Articles 19 to 21 of the Civil Code, which address harm caused by defamatory falsehoods. In civil cases, the complainant has more control over the proceedings, unlike in criminal cases where the prosecution takes precedence. This ruling clarifies that while online defamation before the Cybercrime Act may not constitute criminal cyber libel, it could still lead to civil liability and underscores the importance of the non-retroactivity of unfavorable criminal laws.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Peñalosa v. Ocampo, G.R. No. 230299, April 26, 2023