SC: Cyberlibel prescribes one year from discovery

The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the doctrine that cyberlibel prescribes one year from the time of discovery, not from the date of publication.

In a 30-page resolution dated April 8, the SC En Banc denied separate motions for reconsideration filed by Berteni Causing and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

The Court cited Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which states that the prescriptive period begins on the day the crime is discovered by the offended party, authorities, or their agents.

“The fundamental duty of the Court is to apply the law, regardless of its implications. The Court is not in a position to disregard the foregoing provision of law, lest it tread upon impermissible judicial legislation and violate the elementary principle of separation of powers,” it said.

The SC also rejected the argument that online publication automatically means the offended party is presumed to have seen the post, noting that social media content is not always accessible or immediately visible to all users.

The case stemmed from a libel complaint filed by a representative against Causing, then a councilor in Marikina City, in 2020 over allegations that he pocketed P200 million in relief goods.

The complainant said he discovered the post in February and April 2019.

The SC said Causing was charged before a regional trial court (RTC) in 2021.

Causing earlier filed a motion to quash the information, arguing that more than one year had passed since the post was uploaded.

However, the RTC denied his motion, ruling that cyberlibel prescribes in 12 years under the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

Causing elevated the case to the SC, which ruled that cyberlibel is subject to a one-year prescriptive period from discovery, similar to traditional libel under the RPC.

Both Causing and the OSG later filed partial motions for reconsideration.

In denying the appeal, the SC ruled that cyberlibel is not a separate crime but libel committed through a computer system.

The Court said the Cybercrime Prevention Act does not create a new offense for libel but merely recognizes the use of information and communications technology in its commission.

“The Cybercrime Prevention Act simply recognizes a computer system as a means of publishing defamatory material and makes the use of information and communication technology in the commission of libel,” it said.

“Legislators themselves recognized that the Cybercrime Prevention Act did not create a new crime of cyberlibel because libel is already punished by the RPC,” it added.

The SC also stressed that the prescription of crimes is within the exclusive prerogative of Congress.

“Considering the absence of any ambiguity or doubt in the applicable law concerning the reckoning point of the prescriptive period of cyberlibel under Article 91 of the RPC, there is no room for interpretation; the Court’s duty is to simply apply it,” it said.

Decriminalization view

In a concurring opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said the one-year prescriptive period should apply only to cases involving private individuals.

Leonen also reiterated his position that libel involving public figures should be decriminalized.

“The continued punishment of comments and criticisms directed at public figures hampers the promotion of an atmosphere of uninhibited discussion and opinions relating to the proper conduct of those in public office,” he said in a nine-page opinion.

He said criminal libel creates a chilling effect on free expression and “contradicts our notions of a genuinely democratic society.”

“In my view, the adoption and strict application of the actual malice test in cases involving public figures is a recognition of the importance of freedom of speech and expression,” he said.

“Nonetheless, I agree that the State remains duty-bound to protect private individuals from slanderous remarks,” he added.—MCG, GMA News