SC upholds one-year prescription period for cyber libel

The Supreme Court affirmed its ruling that cyber libel prescribes one year from the time it is discovered.

The resolution, written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, was made as the SC En Banc denied the separate motions for reconsideration filed by Berteni Cataluña Causing and the Office of the Solicitor General.

The judges upheld that under the Revised Penal Code, written libel has a one-year prescription period, and no law excludes cyber libel from this period. 

The SC reiterated that cyber libel is not a separate crime, only libel committed through a computer system, and that a higher penalty for cyber libel under the Cybercrime Prevention Act does not imply that its prescriptive period should be extended.

The court added that when laws on the prescription of crimes are unclear, they must be interpreted in favor of the accused, making the Revised Penal Code's one-year prescriptive period for cyber libel prevail over the Cybercrime Prevention Act's 15-year period.

SC also affirmed that prescription begins upon discovery of the offense, not upon publication, as the law states that prescription runs from the time the offended party or authorities discover the crime.

The court also clarified that its earlier ruling in Tolentino v. People, which stated that cyber libel prescribes in 15 years, is not binding on Causing because the case was decided through an unsigned resolution, binding only the parties involved.

How the SC judges voted

Concurring judges include Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen and Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, including five others.

Dissenting judges include Associate Justice Kho Jr. and six others who argued that cyber libel should be a distinct crime with a 15-year prescriptive period due to heavier penalties.

In December 2020, Cotabato Second District Representative Ferdinand L. Hernandez filed a cyber libel complaint with the prosecutor against Causing, related to Facebook posts accusing Hernandez of pocketing over PHP 200 million in relief goods for Marawi victims. Hernandez stated he discovered the posts on February 4 and April 29, 2019.

Criminal Informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Causing in May 2021. Causing filed a motion to quash the Informations, arguing that they were already time-barred under the Revised Penal Code because more than one year had passed since the posts were uploaded.

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

In their motions for reconsideration to the SC, the OSG argued that cyber libel should prescribe in 15 years under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, citing SC's decision in Tolentino v. People, while Causing argued that the prescription for cyber libel should start from the publication date rather than from discovery.