2 hours ago
3
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
The SC also affirms that prescription starts upon the discovery of the offense, not when it was published
MANILA, Philippines – With a vote of 8-7, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the prescription period for cyber libel offenses is one year and not 15 years.
The SC, as announced on Monday, April 20, upheld the earlier decision of its 3rd Division in the Causing v. People that ruled that cases of cyber libel should use a one year prescription period — similar to the period being used in traditional libel under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The prescription period, which varies from case to case, is the time frame within which a lawsuit can be filed. A legal action filed beyond the prescription period is invalid.
There have been debates over whether the period should be a year (as prescribed by the RPC) or 15 years, as stated in the Tolentino v. People case. The en banc ruling on the Causing v. People case, penned by Associate Justice Henry Jean Paul Inting, settled the correct prescription period for cyber libel offenses.
In their recent decision, the SC said that there is no law excluding cyber libel from the traditional libel’s one-year prescription period. The High Court explained that Congress has always treated libel as having a shorter period than other crimes, even when penalties have increased.
In addition, the SC said that cyber libel is not a separate crime, but rather a libel committed through a computer system. Even if the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 has a higher penalty for cyber libel, this does not mean that the prescription period should be longer than that of traditional libel, the magistrates ruled.
“The SC added that when laws on the prescription of crimes are unclear, they must be interpreted in favor of the accused. Since the RPC sets a one-year prescriptive period for cyber libel, it prevails over the 15-year period under the Cybercrime Prevention Act,” the High Court added.
In the same ruling, the SC also affirmed that prescription starts upon the discovery of the offense, not when it was published. It explained that the law clearly states that the prescription period is triggered by the discovery by the offended party or the authorities.
“The SC rejected the idea that an online publication automatically implies the offended party is presumed to have seen the post. 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,” the SC added.
Meanwhile, the High Court also explained that the Tolentino v. People — which states that cyber libel prescribes in 15 years — is not binding on the Causing case. The SC said the Tolentino case was an unsigned resolution, therefore it only binds the parties involved, and cannot be applied to third persons.
How the justices voted
The magistrates were split in their voting. The following justices concurred with Associate Justice Inting’s ponencia:
- Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo
- Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen
- Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa
- Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda
- Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan
- Associate Justice Jose Midas Marquez
- Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh
Meanwhile, six justices joined Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr.’s dissent:
- Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando
- Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier
- Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario
- Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez
- Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao
- Associate Justice Raul Villanueva
Senior Associate Justice Leonen, in his concurring opinion, said that the one-year period should apply only to libel cases against private individuals. The senior magistrate also noted that libel cases involving public figures should be decriminalized because “punishing comments and criticisms directed at public officials discourages free and uninhibited discussion about how those in public office conduct themselves.”
Meanwhile, Associate Justice Caguioa said that the prescription period for libel has always been one or two years, and never 10 or more years.
For his part, Associate Justice Kho agreed that unsigned resolutions cannot create doctrines of law, but disagreed on the one-year prescription period for cyber libel.
He argued that traditional and cyber libel are two separate crimes since the latter is punished under the Cybercrime Prevention Act. He added that libel committed through computer systems are punished under Cybercrime and Prevention Act, and the one-year period of traditional libel is not applicable.
Causing case: What happened before
The case started when Cotabato 2nd District Representative Ferdinand Hernandez filed a cyber libel complaint against Berteni Causing, a former lawyer, over the latter’s claim that the lawmaker allegedly pocketed P200 million in relief goods for Marawi victims.
Hernandez said he discovered the libelous posts on February 4 and April 29, 2019.
When the case reached the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Causing filed a motion to quash the information, arguing that it had been years since the posts were uploaded. The RTC denied the motion, explaining that cyber libel prescribes in 12 years, under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
At the SC level, the High Court clarified that the prescriptive period for cyber libel is indeed one year from the date of discovery, similar to traditional libel. But the SC rejected Causing’s motion to quash due to insufficient proof that the offense had already expired.
Both Causing and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed motions for reconsideration.
The OSG argued that the prescription period is 15 years, under Tolentino v. People, while Causing claimed that cyber libel prescription starts during the publication, and not discovery. However, the SC rejected both the OSG and Causing’s arguments. – Rappler.com
