TL;DR

The Supreme Court has ruled that cyber libel cases in the Philippines must be filed within one year from the date the defamatory online post is discovered by the victim or authorities. This decision clarifies that cyber libel, which is libel committed online, follows the same one-year prescriptive period as traditional libel under the Revised Penal Code. This means individuals have a limited time to file charges after discovering a libelous post online, ensuring cases are pursued promptly and aligning cyber libel with the established legal framework for defamation.

Time’s Up for Online Slander: Cyber Libel Prescription in the Digital Age

In the case of Causing v. People, the Supreme Court addressed a crucial question in the realm of cybercrime: how long does one have to file a cyber libel case in the Philippines? This case revolved around Berteni Causing, who was charged with cyber libel for Facebook posts allegedly defaming a Congressman. Causing argued that the charges had prescribed, meaning the time limit for filing the case had expired. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) disagreed, applying a longer prescriptive period. This led Causing to elevate the issue to the Supreme Court, questioning whether cyber libel should be governed by the same prescriptive rules as traditional libel, or if a different, longer period should apply due to its digital nature.

The heart of the legal debate was whether cyber libel, as defined under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175), is a distinct crime with its own prescriptive period, or simply libel committed through digital means. The RTC initially leaned towards a longer prescriptive period, citing Act No. 3326 and a previous court resolution, Tolentino v. People, which suggested a 15-year period. Causing, on the other hand, contended that cyber libel is fundamentally the same as libel under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which has a one-year prescriptive period. He argued that RA 10175 merely specifies a computer system as a means of committing libel and increases the penalty, but doesn’t alter the crime’s essential nature or its prescriptive period.

The Supreme Court sided with Causing, firmly establishing that the prescriptive period for cyber libel is indeed one year, as stipulated for libel in Article 90 of the RPC. The Court emphasized that RA 10175 did not create a new crime of cyber libel. Instead, it recognized the use of computer systems as a modern means of committing the existing crime of libel. The decision explicitly stated that Section 4(c)(4) of RA 10175, which defines cyber libel, merely implements Articles 353 and 355 of the RPC in the online context. To underscore this point, the Court quoted its earlier Disini v. Secretary of Justice decision, stating, “cyberlibel is actually not a new crime since Article 353, in relation to Article 355 of the penal code, already punishes it. In effect, Section 4(c)(4) above merely affirms that online defamation constitutes ‘similar means’ for committing libel.”

Building on this principle, the Court clarified that because cyber libel is rooted in the RPC’s definition of libel, the prescriptive period must also be governed by the RPC, specifically Article 90. The Court rejected the application of Act No. 3326, which governs prescription for special laws, because libel is defined and penalized under the RPC. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that even if Act No. 3326 were considered, the principle of favoring the accused in penal statutes dictates that the shorter, one-year prescriptive period under the RPC should prevail. The decision explicitly abandoned the Tolentino ruling, which had suggested a 15-year prescriptive period for cyber libel.

The Supreme Court also addressed when this one-year period begins to run. Referring to Article 91 of the RPC, the Court affirmed the “discovery rule,” stating that the prescriptive period commences “from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents.” This means the one-year clock starts ticking not necessarily from the date of the libelous post, but from when the victim or relevant authorities become aware of it. This is crucial in the online context, where defamatory posts can remain unnoticed for extended periods.

Despite clarifying the prescriptive period, the Supreme Court ultimately denied Causing’s petition. The Court reasoned that prescription is a matter of defense that must be proven by the accused. Since the date of discovery was not explicitly stated in the Informations (the formal charges), and Causing did not present evidence to prove the charges had prescribed, the RTC was correct in denying the Motion to Quash. The Court emphasized that unless prescription is evident on the face of the Information, it is the accused’s responsibility to demonstrate that the case is time-barred. The Court did not rule on whether the cyber libel charges against Causing had actually prescribed, leaving this factual determination to the RTC during trial.

This decision has significant implications for both individuals and the legal system. It provides clarity and finality on a previously ambiguous area of law, ensuring that cyber libel cases are subject to a reasonable and consistent prescriptive period. By aligning cyber libel with traditional libel in terms of prescription, the Supreme Court reinforces the principle that the medium may change, but the fundamental nature of defamation remains the same. This ruling balances the need to protect individuals from online defamation with the principles of timely prosecution and statutory interpretation favoring the accused in criminal matters.

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: Berteni Cataluña Causing v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 258524, October 11, 2023.