SC: Courts may impose fine instead of imprisonment for online libel

The Supreme Court has ruled that a trial court may impose a fine instead of imprisonment on individuals found guilty of online libel.

In a decision, the SC en banc dismissed a petition for review on certiorari that assailed the ruling and resolution of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of a regional trial court that fined Jomerito Soliman P50,000 for online libel.

“Considering the foregoing, the Court rules that the CA correctly found that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in imposing the penalty of a fine only,” the Court said.

In 2019, the RTC found Soliman guilty beyond reasonable doubt of online libel and ordered him to pay P50,000.

The RTC invoked Supreme Court Administrative Circular 08-2008, which permitted the imposition of a fine instead of imprisonment in libel cases.

In its petition filed before the CA, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in imposing a fine only.

The CA dismissed the petition, pushing the OSG to elevate the case to the SC.

“The Court takes this opportunity to clarify… that as worded, both the RPC (Revised Penal Code) and RA 10175 prescribe the penalty of imprisonment or a fine for the crimes of traditional libel and online libel, depending on the circumstances present in each case,” the SC said.

“Both statutes did not alter the character of the penalties of imprisonment and fine as alternatives to each other, or as concurrent penalties, in cases of online libel or libel,” it added.

The Court also dismissed the OSG’s argument that the circular could not apply to online libel because the Cybercrime Prevention Act was passed years later, specifically in 2012. 

“The circular does not supplant the legislative intent behind the imposition of a higher degree of penalty in online libel. To be clear, in no way does it mandate the imposition of fine only in libel cases,” it said.

“In fact, with due deference to prevailing statutes, it is careful to emphasize that it does not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty,” it added.

The decision, promulgated on April 25 but published only recently, was penned by Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr. —VBL, GMA Integrated News