Brief History of Cyber Law in the Philippines:
- September 12, 2012 — Congress enacted the Cybercrime Prevention Act (Republic Act No. 10175), which, among other things, classified libel committed through a computer system or any other similar means as “cyberlibel.”
- October 9, 2012 — The Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against parts of the law while challenges were heard.
- February 18, 2014 — In Disini v. Secretary of Justice, the Court upheld cyberlibel’s constitutionality but struck down the part that would have criminalized simply aiding or abetting libel (e.g., mere “liking” or “sharing”).
Legal Basis:
- Revised Penal Code (RPC), Arts. 353–355, 360–362 — define libel, means of publication, who may be prosecuted, venue, defenses, and privileges.
- RA 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act), Sec. 4(c)(4) — treats libel done “through a computer system or any similar means” as cyberlibel; Sec. 6 — penalties are one degree higher than for libel under the RPC.
- RA 10951 (2017) — updated fines in the RPC (including Article 355).
Elements of Cyberlibel:
The elements are the same as libel, but with the use of a computer system:
- Defamatory Imputation.There must be a statement that tends to cause dishonor, discredit, contempt, or damage to the reputation of a person.
Example: Accusing someone of a crime, corruption, or immoral conduct online. - Malice. The defamatory statement must have been made with malice (bad intent), or at least without justifiable reason.
Malice is presumed in many libel laws if the statement is defamatory on its face. - Publication. The statement must be made public, meaning it was communicated to at least one person other than the subject.
In cyberlibel, this means posting/sharing online, sending in a group chat, or making it accessible on the internet. - Identifiability. The person defamed must be identifiable, even if not named explicitly, as long as reasonable people can recognize who is being referred to.
- Medium of Communication (Cyber/Online Platform). Unlike traditional libel, cyberlibel specifically involves use of digital or electronic means (e.g., Facebook posts, tweets, blogs, emails, YouTube videos).
Who can be liable:
Authors and those who publish, exhibit, or cause publication of the defamatory matter (including responsible officers in media outfits), as provided in Article 360 RPC and its amendments)
Important limit: the Supreme Court struck down the attempt to punish aiding/abetting libel under RA 10175; mere “likes,” “shares,” or “retweets” are not, by themselves, a separate cyberlibel offense.
Penalties:
- Traditional Libel: Punishable by prisión correccional in its minimum to medium period (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months), or a fine.
- Cyber Libel: Punishable by a penalty one degree higher than Traditional Libel, i.e., generally prisión mayor (6 years and 1 day to 8 years), and/or a fine.
- Doctrine (People v. Soliman, En Banc, Apr. 25, 2023): The Court clarified that in cyber libel, judges may impose a fine in lieu of imprisonment.
Venue, Jurisdiction, and Prescription (time limits):
- Venue: Pursuant to Article 360, RPC, criminal libel actions may be filed in the place where the libelous post was published or where the offended party actually resides at the time of commission.
- Jurisdiction: Since cyber libel carries the penalty of prisión mayor (6 years and 1 day to 8 years), jurisdiction lies with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), designated as a cybercrime court.
- Prescription: The Supreme Court, in the case Berteni Causing v. People (G.R. No. 258524, promulgated October 2023; released January 2024), held that cyber libel prescribes in one (1) year. The prescriptive period is reckoned generally from discovery of the offense.
Cyberlibel vs. Libel under the RPC (at a glance):
| Topic | Traditional Libel (RPC) | Cyberlibel (RA 10175) |
| Medium | Writing, printing, radio, cinema, “similar means” | Through a computer system (websites, social media, email, etc.) |
| Penalty | Prisión correccional (min.–med.) or fine (RA 10951) | One degree higher (typically prisión mayor) or fine; fine-only penalty expressly allowed by SC (Soliman) |
| Who may be charged | Authors, editors, publishers, owners, business managers (Art. 360) | Same persons, if the defamatory act used a computer system |
| Venue | Special Art. 360 rules | Same Art. 360 rules apply |
| Prescription | 1 year (Art. 90 for libel) | 1 year (Causing v. People, 2023/2024) |
Jurisprudence to know:
- Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335 (Feb. 18, 2014, en banc):
Cyberlibel provision upheld; “aiding/abetting” cyberlibel struck down; the Court recognized the State’s power to penalize defamation online but invalidated overbroad parts of the law. - People v. Soliman, G.R. No. 256700 (prom. Apr. 25, 2023; media release Oct. 17, 2023):
Courts may impose a fine alone (no jail) for online libel; if imposing a fine, it must be one degree higher than the RPC fine per Sec. 6, RA 10175. - Berteni Causing v. People, G.R. No. 258524 (prom. Oct. 2023; released Jan. 2024): Cyberlibel prescribes in one (1) year from discovery; the Cybercime Prevention Act “merely recognized an additional means for committing libel,” and did not create a different prescriptive timetable.
- People v. Santos, Ressa & Rappler (Manila RTC Br. 46, June 15, 2020; later CA rulings):
High-profile conviction applying RA 10175 to an online article; case illustrates how courts analyze online publication and identifiability. (Trial-court level, cited widely in commentary.)
Author’s notes:
- Truth alone is not enough: under Article 361, the accused must also show good motives and justifiable ends to be acquitted on a truth defense. Qualifiedly privileged communications (e.g., fair and true reports of official proceedings, certain private communications) can negate the presumption of malice unless actual malice is shown.
- Public officials and public figures: Criticism directed at them is given broader protection, and in certain cases, the complainant must show actual malice. However, criminal libel remains recognized under Philippine law.
- Venue mistakes and time-bar are common pitfalls: ensure the Art. 360 venue rule is satisfied and the 1-year prescriptive period has not lapsed.
Conclusion:
Cyberlibel in the Philippines is not a new offense; it is essentially ordinary libel committed through digital platforms. The law, however, increases the penalty by one degree while retaining the special venue and the one-year prescription rules that make libel distinct. Recent Supreme Court rulings clarified two important points: first, courts may impose a fine alone for online libel (Soliman case), and second, the prescriptive period for cyberlibel is one year from discovery (Causing case). At the same time, overly broad liability for actions such as “liking” or “sharing” content has been struck down (Disini case). Individuals posting accusations online, particularly against identifiable private persons, should be mindful of these rules, while complainants must act promptly and file in the proper venue.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for general guidance and does not substitute for legal advice. Consult a Philippine lawyer for proper assistance.