Clarifying the Prescriptive Period in Cyber Libel Cases

Former lawmaker Ferdinand Hernandez (Hernandez) filed a cyber libel complaint against Atty. Berteni Cataluña Causing (Atty. Causing) with the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office, citing Section 4(c)4 of R.A. No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, in relation to Articles 353 and 355 of the Revised Penal Code.

Hernandez alleged that on February 4 and April 29, 2019, Atty. Causing made accusations on him posted on Facebook, creating an impression that he stole public funds intended for Marawi siege victims. On May 10, 2021, prosecutors filed a two separate information against Atty. Causing for Cyber Libel.

In response, Atty. Causing filed a Motion to Quash, arguing that the posts in question were uploaded in February and April 2019, while the complaint was filed on December 16, 2020. Since the complaint was filed after more than a year since the posts were published, Atty. Causing insists that the Cyber Libel cases against him has already prescribed.

However, on October 5, 2021, the RTC rejected Atty. Causing’s motion, stating that the Cyber Libel cases had not prescribed. The trial court clarified that Hernandez filed the complaint on December 17, 2020, which was just “two weeks from the discovery of the purported crimes”.

Atty. Causing raised the issue to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prescriptive period for Cyber Libel cases should be set at one (1) year, and not fifteen (15) years.

Ruling in favor of Atty. Causing, the Supreme Court held that Cyber Libel offenses prescribe after one (1) year. The Court clarified that, in determining the prescriptive period of Cyber Libel, the RPC, not Act No. 3326, should be applied. According to the Court, this is because “Section 4(c)4 of R.A. 10175 merely implements the RPC’s provisions on Libel under Articles 353 and 355 when it is committed through a computer system.”

The Court reiterated its ruling in Disini vs. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014) stating that the offense of Cyber Libel is not a new crime. The offense under Section 4(c)4 of R.A. 10175 and the crime under Article 355 of the RPC are one and the same crime with the same elements. The only difference is that R.A. 10175 simply recognizes a computer system as one of the “similar means” of publication of libelous statements.

The Court examined both Act No. 3326 and the RPC and determined which statutory provision has the shortest prescriptive period and is most favorable to the accused. This is based on the settled rule that statutory provisions on the prescription of crimes must be construed in favor of the accused.

The Court also resolved the two (2) conflicting paragraphs under Article 90 of the RPC as regards the appropriate prescription period in Cyber Libel cases. It must be noted that R.A. 10175 imposes an increased penalty for Cyber Libel which is higher than the conventional Libel under the RPC, ranking the offense as an afflictive penalty. Therefore, on the one hand, paragraph 2 of Article 90 of the RPC provides that afflictive penalties carry a prescriptive period of fifteen (15) years, while on the other hand, paragraph 4 of the same Article specifically provide a one (1) year prescriptive period for Libel under the RPC. 

In addressing the conflict, the Court applied the rule on statutory construction that a special and specific provision of law prevails over a general provision of the same law (Generalia Specialbus non Derogant). Thus, since paragraph 4 is more specific to Libel, the same indisputably prevails over the general provision of paragraph 2 which widely encompasses afflictive penalties. 

In addition to addressing the prescriptive period, the Court also provided clarification on when said period commences, emphasizing that the reckoning period should initiate from the moment the offended party discovered the alleged libelous statements. With this, the Supreme Court denied Atty. Causing's Petition because the libelous statements posted on Facebook was discovered by the complainant only two (2) weeks before he filed the complaint with the Prosecutor's Office. 

The Supreme Court further clarified that the prescription period may be calculated from the publication of the libelous matter only when it aligns with the day when the offended party first became aware of the remarks..