Below is a general discussion of the prescription period for libel cases in the Philippines—particularly in relation to Facebook or “online” posts involving allegations about loans or indebtedness. This discussion is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific concerns, it is always best to consult a qualified Philippine attorney.

1. Understanding Libel Under Philippine Law

1.1. Definition of Libel

Under Articles 353 to 362 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), libel is defined as:

“A public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person…”

In simpler terms, libel is (a) a defamatory imputation; (b) made publicly; (c) with malice; and (d) directed against a specific person. Traditionally, “libel” under the RPC refers to written or broadcast forms of defamation (e.g., print publications, radio, television). For spoken defamation, the crime is “slander,” though modern digital communication can blur these lines.

1.2. Cyberlibel

Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, punishes certain crimes when committed using computer systems or the internet. The Act includes cyberlibel—which is basically libel done through a computer system or similar means. Posting allegedly libelous content on a social media platform like Facebook can be charged under cyberlibel.

2. Libel (Under the Revised Penal Code) vs. Cyberlibel

2.1. Ordinary Libel (RPC)

Governing Law: Revised Penal Code, particularly Articles 353–362.
Penalty Range: Generally, prisión correccional in its minimum to medium periods (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months), or a fine, or both (subject to judicial discretion and various modifying factors).
Prescriptive Period: 1 year from the date of publication (or from the date the offended party had knowledge of the publication, though case law typically hinges on the date of actual publication).

2.2. Cyberlibel (R.A. 10175)

Governing Law: Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Sections 4(c)(4), 6, and 7).
Penalty Range: One degree higher than ordinary libel, typically prisión correccional in its maximum period to prisión mayor in its minimum period (which can run roughly from 4 years, 2 months and 1 day, up to 8 or 10 years, depending on aggravating/mitigating circumstances).
Prescriptive Period: This point has been the subject of significant debate and varying interpretations. Because cyberlibel is penalized under a special law, it does not automatically follow the one-year prescription for libel under the Revised Penal Code. Instead, many authorities and legal practitioners apply Act No. 3326 (the law on prescription of offenses under special laws) to argue that the prescriptive period for cyberlibel is 12 years.

It is important to note that while there is a consensus among many prosecutors and practitioners that the prescription period for cyberlibel is 12 years (owing to R.A. 10175 being a special law and the penalty being higher), there has been continued discussion on whether the Supreme Court might in the future clarify this definitively. As of this writing, the safer practical view (and the one commonly used by law enforcement and prosecutors) is that cyberlibel prescribes in 12 years.

3. Facebook Posts and the “Single Publication Rule”

3.1. Single Publication Rule

In defamation law—whether offline or online—Philippine courts often refer to the “single publication rule,” meaning that the prescriptive period is generally counted from the first publication or posting. A fresh prescription period does not necessarily arise every time a libelous post is accessed, commented on, or shared.

In the digital context, if a Facebook post is made on January 1, 2025, that date is typically treated as the “date of publication.” Simply because users may see (or “discover”) the post later does not reset the clock. However, if the same user later creates a new post (not just re-sharing the original post but retyping or re-uploading the same defamatory statements at a later date), this can be deemed a new publication and may trigger a separate prescriptive period from that second publication date.

3.2. Date of Discovery vs. Date of Publication

Although defamation victims often only discover a defamatory post belatedly, Philippine jurisprudence has historically pegged the start of prescription at the date of publication rather than discovery. While some older libel doctrines mention the possibility of starting the clock at “date of knowledge” in certain circumstances, the safer assumption is to consider the first actual publication date as controlling—especially for online or social media content.

4. Loan-Related Facebook Posts: Typical Libel Issues

4.1. Common Allegations

A person who posts disparaging or damaging remarks regarding someone else’s alleged refusal to pay a loan may be exposing themselves to a libel suit if the statements are:

Publicly posted (set to “public” or viewed by many),
Defamatory (accusing someone of dishonesty, fraud, or immorality),
Made with malice (there is knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of truth), and
Clearly directed at a specific individual (the offended party is easily identifiable).

4.2. Civil and Criminal Liability

Aside from criminal liability for libel or cyberlibel, the author of the defamatory post may also face a separate civil action for damages (moral damages, nominal damages, etc.). The offended party may choose to file both criminal and civil cases arising from the same act.

5. Practical Points on the Prescriptive Period

Ordinary Libel: 1 Year
- Charged under Articles 353–362 of the RPC.
- Must be filed within 1 year of the publication date.
Cyberlibel: Commonly Treated as 12 Years
- Charged under R.A. 10175.
- Prosecutors generally invoke Act No. 3326, which sets out the prescription periods for offenses under special laws.
- Because cyberlibel has a higher penalty and is not found in the Revised Penal Code itself, the 12-year period is the prevailing view.
Trigger Point for Counting the Prescriptive Period:
- Starts from the first public posting or first publication on social media.
- Reposts or separate new posts can be deemed a fresh publication.
Continuing vs. Single Publication:
- Mere continuous online availability does not typically reset the prescription clock (single publication rule).
- A fresh post, however, is a new act of publication.

6. Illustrative Timeline Example

January 1, 2025: Person A posts a Facebook status accusing Person B of borrowing money and refusing to pay, calling them a “scammer” and “fraud.”
Starting Date for Prescription (Cyberlibel): January 1, 2025 (if the prosecution alleges a violation of R.A. 10175). The commonly applied period is 12 years, thus the State can generally initiate criminal prosecution up until January 1, 2037 (subject to nuances and any contrary rulings).
Starting Date for Prescription (Ordinary Libel): Same date (January 1, 2025), but the prescriptive period is just 1 year, i.e., until January 1, 2026.

If on March 1, 2026, Person A re-posts a new (not merely “sharing” but creating a new, updated post) defamatory statement about Person B’s alleged unpaid loan, that new publication can trigger a separate start date for counting prescription.

7. Jurisprudence & Ongoing Debates

Disini v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335, 2014): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of cyberlibel (with certain modifications on the liability of individuals who only receive or react to the post, i.e., “liking” or “commenting” might not necessarily be libelous). However, the Court did not conclusively fix the exact prescriptive period in that decision.
Application of Act No. 3326: Because R.A. 10175 is a special law, the prescriptive period for offenses under special laws often follows Act No. 3326. This typically leads to the conclusion that cyberlibel is subject to a 12-year prescription if it carries a penalty exceeding six (6) years of imprisonment.
Awaiting Further Clarification: The Supreme Court’s final, definitive pronouncement specifically on the prescriptive period for cyberlibel is often said to be pending or at least not comprehensively resolved. Nonetheless, in practice, the Department of Justice and most prosecutors apply the 12-year rule.

8. Best Practices and Tips

For Potential Accusers:
- Understand that if you publicly accuse someone of owing money and impute dishonesty or fraud, it may be deemed defamatory if not done within the bounds of fair comment or qualified privilege.
- Consider that even if your accusations are “true,” truth alone does not necessarily absolve one of liability if malice is present or if it does not meet other legal requirements for a valid defense.
For Potentially Defamed Parties:
- Document evidence (screenshots of the Facebook post, timestamps, URLs).
- Contact a lawyer promptly if you believe the 1-year or 12-year prescription is running.
- For more urgent relief, you might consider civil remedies (including a possible petition for injunction or damages, though defamation injunctions are not always granted as readily as in other jurisdictions).
Know Your Deadlines:
- If the post is purely offline or is charged under ordinary libel, the one-year limit is strict.
- If proceeding under cyberlibel, you likely have a significantly longer window (often regarded as 12 years). However, it is still prudent not to delay seeking legal advice.
Continuous Vigilance:
- A subsequent re-publication or new defamatory post can trigger another prescriptive period. Keep track of all potentially libelous incidents.

9. Conclusion

When someone posts defamatory material (e.g., accusing another person of failing to pay a loan) on Facebook in the Philippines, two main legal regimes may come into play:

Ordinary Libel (Revised Penal Code) with a 1-year prescription period; or
Cyberlibel (R.A. 10175), which is widely treated as having a 12-year prescription period under Act No. 3326.

Distinguishing between these two—and establishing which law and prescriptive period apply—depends on how prosecutors or complainants frame the charge, and on how courts interpret the specific act. Although the single publication rule applies (meaning the clock generally starts on the date of the original post), repeated or new postings can reset the period.

Ultimately, because social media is governed by special law (R.A. 10175) and because that law imposes a higher penalty, the majority view (used by prosecutors) is that cyberlibel prescribes in 12 years. However, one should monitor emerging Supreme Court rulings for any changes or clarifications on this point.

Disclaimer: This discussion is intended only as an overview. Defamation and libel laws can be nuanced, and courts may interpret certain details differently depending on the facts and evolving jurisprudence. Always seek legal counsel for any specific case.