Below is an extensive discussion of cyber libel in the Philippine setting, focusing on the governing laws, time limits (prescription periods), and filing requirements. This information is based on the applicable statutes (primarily the Revised Penal Code and Republic Act No. 10175, or the “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012”), pertinent Supreme Court rulings (such as Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335), and prevailing legal principles.
1. Legal Framework
1.1. Revised Penal Code (RPC)
- Traditional (Print/Media) Libel is primarily governed by Articles 353 to 362 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
- Article 353 (Definition of Libel): Libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect (real or imaginary), or any act/omission/condition that tends to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person.
- Article 355 (Penalties): Libel committed by means of writing or similar media is punishable by prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods (i.e., 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months), plus possible fines.
1.2. Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012)
- Cyber Libel (Section 4(c)(4)): Penalizes “libel committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.”
- Penalty for Cyber Libel: The law provides a penalty “one degree higher” than that provided for simple (traditional) libel in the RPC. Since ordinary libel carries prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods, cyber libel is penalized with prisión mayor in its minimum period (i.e., 6 years and 1 day to 8 years), plus a fine.
1.3. Supreme Court Guidance (Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, 11 February 2014)
- The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of cyber libel as it applies only to the original author of the post.
- The Court struck down the provision that would have made those who merely receive or react (e.g., “like,” “comment,” or “share”) equally liable.
- The Court also clarified that the “single publication rule” applies to online posts, meaning the prescriptive period generally runs from the date of first publication (i.e., the initial posting).
2. Definition and Elements of Cyber Libel
Although cyber libel tracks the elements of traditional libel, the key difference is use of a “computer system” or “similar means” as the medium. To secure a conviction for cyber libel, the prosecution must prove:
- Imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another.
- Publication of the imputation through a computer system or similar technology.
- Identity of the person defamed (the subject must be identifiable).
- Existence of malice.
“Publication” in cyber libel occurs when the post or statement is first made accessible online in a manner that can be understood by a third person.
3. Distinguishing Ordinary Libel from Cyber Libel
| Aspect | Ordinary (Print) Libel | Cyber Libel |
|---|---|---|
| Governing Law | Revised Penal Code (Articles 353-362) | RA 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act), in relation to Revised Penal Code provisions |
| Medium | Print media, television, radio, or similarly “traditional” publication channels | Computer systems, social media platforms, electronic devices, or “similar means” |
| Penalty Range | Prisión correccional in minimum & medium periods (6 months + 1 day to 4 years + 2 months) | Prisión mayor in its minimum period (6 years + 1 day to 8 years), plus a fine |
| Prescriptive Period | Generally 1 year (counted from date of publication) under the Revised Penal Code | Generally 12 years (because the penalty is ≥6 years) under Act No. 3326, unless jurisprudence sets out a different specific rule. |
| Single Publication Rule | Applies in print—republication triggers a new cause of action if there is a “fresh” publication or printing | Also applies online—continuous hosting of the same post does not restart prescription; only a genuine repost or new publication might do so |
4. Prescriptive Period for Cyber Libel
4.1. General Rule for Special Laws (Act No. 3326)
- When an offense is punishable under a special law (such as RA 10175), the prescription period is governed by Act No. 3326.
- Under Section 1(d) of Act No. 3326:
- If the penalty is “imprisonment for six years or more, but less than twelve years,” prescription is 12 years. - Because cyber libel imposes a penalty of prisión mayor in its minimum period (6 years + 1 day to 8 years), it squarely falls within the range of “six years or more, but less than twelve years,” making the prescriptive period 12 years.
Practical Effect:
- Compared to ordinary libel’s one-year prescriptive period, cyber libel’s higher penalty results in a longer time (12 years) for the State (through the Office of the Prosecutor) or the offended party to commence prosecution.
4.2. Single Publication Rule and Online Postings
- The Supreme Court in Disini adopted the single publication rule for cyber libel.
- Implication: The prescriptive period starts counting from the date the offending material is first posted or published online.
- Continuous Hosting: Simply keeping the post accessible (e.g., an old blog post still up on a website) does not constitute repeated “new” publications. Thus, the 12-year period does not restart continuously.
- Reposting or Republishing: If a person reposts or republishes (substantially the same statement) at a later time or on a different platform, that may be treated as a new publication—triggering a fresh prescriptive period for that new post.
5. Filing Requirements for a Cyber Libel Case
5.1. Where to File
Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor:
- The offended party (or complainant) must file a complaint-affidavit before the Prosecutor’s Office that has territorial jurisdiction.
- For libel, jurisdiction traditionally lies where the article or material was printed and first published or where the offended party resides (if a private individual).
- Under RA 10175, although there is no drastic overhaul of venue rules for cyber libel, prosecutors often consider the offended party’s place of residence as a practical venue, provided the online material was accessible there.
Cybercrime Units (optional preliminary step):
- Offended parties or their counsel often consult or coordinate with the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group or the NBI Cybercrime Division for initial investigation (especially where identification of the author or the user behind anonymous accounts is needed).
5.2. Basic Documentary Requirements
When filing a complaint for cyber libel, the complainant should generally submit:
Complaint-Affidavit
- Detailing the facts of the case, the specific statements alleged to be libelous, and the manner of publication (e.g., a social media post, a blog article).
- Demonstrating how the content is defamatory, its malicious character, and how the complainant was identified or singled out.
Supporting Affidavits of Witnesses (if any)
- Witnesses who can attest to the posting, the identity of the publisher, or the effect on the offended party.
Evidence of the Online Post
- Printouts or screenshots of the allegedly libelous statement(s), with relevant URL(s), timestamps, or metadata.
- Certification from relevant service providers or web admins, if obtainable.
Proof of Identity/Residence
- Helps establish venue if the complainant relies on his/her residence for the filing.
5.3. Preliminary Investigation
- After the complaint is filed, the Prosecutor’s Office conducts a preliminary investigation to determine if there is probable cause to charge the respondent(s).
- The respondent is usually required to submit a counter-affidavit, and the Prosecutor may hold clarificatory hearings if necessary.
5.4. Filing of Information in Court
- If the Prosecutor finds probable cause, an Information for cyber libel is filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) with jurisdiction.
- The accused may then be arraigned and required to enter a plea. Bail will be set if applicable (noting that cyber libel is bailable).
6. Key Considerations and Practical Pointers
Longer Prescription Period (12 years):
- Cyber libel’s significantly longer prescriptive period compared to ordinary libel means potential criminal liability lingers. Content creators, bloggers, social media users, and news outlets must remain mindful of this extended period.
Single Publication Rule:
- The presence of defamatory material on a website for an extended period does not trigger perpetual restarts of prescription. It is the initial online publication date that generally counts.
Malice in Fact vs. Malice in Law:
- As in traditional libel, the prosecution can show malice in law (presumed malice for defamatory imputation) or malice in fact (actual intention to malign) depending on the circumstances.
Exemptions and Defenses:
- The Doctrine of Privileged Communication still applies. Fair commentaries on matters of public interest, truthful reports, or critiques done in good faith and without malice can serve as defenses.
Identifying Anonymous Posters:
- In practice, one may need the cooperation of internet service providers, web hosts, or platform operators (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) to ascertain IP addresses and user identities if the publisher used a pseudonym.
Impact of Supreme Court Decisions:
- While Disini v. Secretary of Justice remains the leading case, future Supreme Court rulings may refine details on prescription and liability. Practitioners should remain updated on new jurisprudence.
7. Conclusion
Cyber libel in the Philippines is governed by RA 10175 in relation to the Revised Penal Code, with the hallmark difference being the use of a computer system or similar means as the medium of publication. Its penalty is one degree higher than ordinary libel, resulting in a longer prescriptive period of 12 years under Act No. 3326.
When filing a complaint, the offended party must submit a complaint-affidavit and supporting evidence to the Office of the Prosecutor with the appropriate venue—often where the offended party resides or where the material was first published. The rule of single publication applies, so prescription typically starts on the date of the post’s initial public access online.
Given the extended prescription period and the complexities of online platforms, both potential complainants and accused individuals are advised to seek proper legal counsel. This ensures not only compliance with procedural rules but also proper navigation through evidentiary and jurisdictional nuances unique to cyber libel cases.