The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that cyber libel cases must be filed within one year from the time the offense is discovered, reinforcing the application of traditional libel rules to online publications.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC En Banc denied the separate motions for reconsideration filed by Berteni Cataluña Causing and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), affirming that cyber libel prescribes in one year from discovery.

“Considering that cyber libel is not a new crime but merely libel committed through a computer system, the one-year prescriptive period under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code applies,” the decision wrote.

FACTS AND ISSUE

The case stemmed from a cyber libel complaint filed in December 2020 by Cotabato Second District Representative Ferdinand L. Hernandez against Berteni Cataluña Causing over Facebook posts accusing the lawmaker of misappropriating over PHP 200 million in relief goods for Marawi victims. Hernandez claimed he discovered the posts on February 4 and April 29, 2019.

Criminal informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in May 2021. Causing moved to quash the charges, arguing that the offenses had already prescribed, claiming that the one-year period should be counted from the date the posts were published.

The RTC denied the motion, holding that cyber libel prescribes in 12 years under Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

On appeal, the SC clarified in its October 2023 Decision that cyber libel prescribes in one year from discovery, consistent with the Revised Penal Code (RPC), but upheld the RTC’s denial of the motion to quash due to lack of evidence proving prescription.

Both Causing and the OSG filed separate motions for partial reconsideration. Causing argued that prescription should be reckoned from publication, not discovery, while the OSG contended that cyber libel should prescribe in 15 years, citing an earlier Supreme Court ruling in Tolentino v. People.

The main issue before the Court was whether cyber libel prescribes in one year or a longer period, and whether the prescriptive period should be counted from publication or discovery.

RULING

The SC denied both motions for reconsideration and affirmed its earlier ruling that cyber libel is not a separate offense but a form of libel committed through a computer system, and is therefore subject to the one-year prescriptive period under Article 90 of the RPC.

The Court emphasized that the Cybercrime Prevention Act did not create a new crime but merely introduced a new mode of committing libel.

The Court also ruled that the prescriptive period begins from discovery of the offense by the offended party or authorities, not from the date of publication. It rejected the argument that online posts are deemed automatically discovered upon posting, noting that access to such content depends on factors like privacy settings and connectivity.

Further, the Court clarified that its earlier ruling in Tolentino v. People, which suggested a longer prescriptive period, was issued through an unsigned resolution and therefore does not establish binding doctrine. As such, it is not controlling on third parties.  

“An unsigned resolution… is not doctrinal and is binding only on the parties thereto,” the Court stated, underscoring that only decisions and signed resolutions may lay down binding legal principles.

The Court likewise maintained that issues of prescription require the presentation of evidence during trial, affirming the RTC’s denial of the motion to quash and allowing the accused to raise the defense during full proceedings.

Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.