Cyber Libel in the Philippines

Is sending a screenshot of a scam alert from the SEC and commenting "not authorized?" a valid case of cyber libel?

Cyber libel is a significant legal issue in the Philippines, particularly with the proliferation of digital communication platforms. The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended by the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175), addresses cyber libel specifically under Section 4(c)(4).

Definition of Cyber Libel

Cyber libel involves defamatory acts committed through a computer system or other similar means, such as social media, email, or text messages. Defamation, as defined under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, involves the public imputation of a crime, vice, defect, act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a person or entity.

Elements of Cyber Libel

To establish a case of cyber libel, the following elements must be proven:

1. Malice: The defamatory statement must be made with malice, either actual or presumed. Actual malice involves knowledge of the statement's falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
2. Publication: The statement must be communicated to a third party. In the context of cyber libel, this involves dissemination through digital means.
3. Identifiability: The person defamed must be identifiable. It must be clear who the statement is about, even if they are not named explicitly.
4. Defamatory Content: The content must be injurious to the reputation of the person or entity.

Defenses Against Cyber Libel

There are several defenses available to individuals accused of cyber libel:

1. Truth: If the statement is true and made with good motives and for justifiable ends, it may serve as a defense.
2. Privilege: Certain communications are privileged, such as those made in the course of judicial, legislative, or executive proceedings.
3. Lack of Malice: If it can be shown that the statement was made without malice, it may mitigate the liability.

Legal Implications of the Query

Sending a screenshot of a scam alert from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and commenting "not authorized?" brings into question whether the statement meets the criteria for cyber libel.

1. Truth and Public Interest: If the SEC has indeed issued a scam alert regarding the company, sharing this information may be seen as a factual statement based on a reliable source. Publicizing such information could be in the public interest, aiming to protect others from potential fraud.
2. Lack of Malice: The comment "not authorized?" may be interpreted as a query rather than a definitive statement. If the sender's intention was to seek clarification rather than to defame, this could demonstrate a lack of malice.
3. Identifiability and Defamatory Content: The message must still be examined to determine if it unfairly tarnishes the company's reputation and if the company is clearly identifiable from the context.

Conclusion

While sharing a scam alert from a credible source like the SEC generally aligns with the truth defense, the specific phrasing and context of the accompanying comment are crucial. In this scenario, if the comment "not authorized?" is interpreted as a genuine inquiry rather than a defamatory assertion, it may not constitute cyber libel. However, the affected party might still pursue legal action if they believe their reputation was unjustly harmed. Legal advice should be sought to navigate the nuances of such cases.