ASG Law

Tag: Cyber Libel

  • Cyber Libel in the Philippines: Understanding the One-Year Prescription Rule

    Cyber Libel: The Supreme Court Clarifies the One-Year Prescription Period

    G.R. No. 258524, October 11, 2023

    Navigating the digital age comes with its own set of legal challenges, particularly when it comes to online defamation. What happens when libelous statements are made online? How long does someone have to file a case? A recent Supreme Court decision sheds light on these questions, clarifying the prescriptive period for cyber libel in the Philippines. The case of *Berteni Cataluña Causing v. People of the Philippines* establishes that cyber libel, like traditional libel, has a prescriptive period of one year from the date of discovery of the defamatory statements.

    Defining Cyber Libel and Its Legal Basis

    To understand the ruling, it’s important to define cyber libel and its legal basis. Libel, as defined in Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), is the public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice, or defect that causes dishonor or discredit to another. Cyber libel, as defined by Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175 (RA 10175), or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, is simply libel committed through a computer system or similar means. Key to note: RA 10175 did *not* create a new crime but rather recognized a new *means* of committing an existing one.

    In the Philippines, the elements of libel are:

    * **Defamatory imputation:** A statement that harms the reputation of another.
    * **Malice:** A wrongful intention to cause harm.
    * **Publication:** The statement is communicated to a third person.
    * **Identifiability:** The person defamed is identifiable.

    Crucially, Section 4(c)(4) of RA 10175 states: “The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.”

    In essence, if you write something defamatory about someone online, with malice, and it is published, you could be liable for cyber libel. The penalty, as specified in RA 10175, is one degree higher than that provided for in the Revised Penal Code.

    The *Causing v. People* Case: A Step-by-Step Breakdown

    The case of *Berteni Cataluña Causing v. People of the Philippines* revolved around Facebook posts made by Causing about Representative Ferdinand L. Hernandez. Hernandez claimed that Causing’s posts implied he stole public funds intended for Marawi siege victims.

    Here’s a breakdown of the case:

    1. **The Facebook Posts:** In February and April 2019, Causing posted content on Facebook implying Hernandez was involved in stealing funds.
    2. **The Complaint:** Hernandez filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City (OCP Quezon City) in December 2020, charging Causing with Cyber Libel.
    3. **The Information:** After finding probable cause, the OCP Quezon City filed two Informations with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) charging Causing with two counts of Cyber Libel.
    4. **Motion to Quash:** Causing filed a Motion to Quash, arguing that the charges had prescribed because the complaint was filed more than one year after the Facebook posts were made. He cited Article 90 of the RPC, which prescribes a one-year period for libel.
    5. **RTC Ruling:** The RTC denied the Motion to Quash, arguing that Act No. 3326, which prescribes a 12-year period, should apply because RA 10175, a special law, does not provide for a prescriptive period. The RTC also cited *Tolentino v. People*, which held that Cyber Libel prescribes in 15 years.
    6. **Petition for *Certiorari*:** Causing filed a Petition for *Certiorari* with the Supreme Court, arguing that the RTC erred in applying Act No. 3326 and challenging the *Tolentino* ruling.

    The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Causing’s argument that the prescriptive period for cyber libel is one year, counted from the date of discovery of the libelous material. Here are some of the key points:

    * RA 10175 did not create a new crime but merely implemented the RPC’s provisions on libel when committed through a computer system.
    * Article 90 of the RPC, not Act No. 3326, defines the prescriptive period of Cyber Libel.
    * Paragraph 4, Article 90 of the RPC is controlling, making the crime of Cyber Libel prescribe in one year.

    The Court noted that “Cyber Libel is therefore a crime defined and penalized by the RPC.”

    The Supreme Court emphasized that prescription is a matter of defense and must be proven by the accused. While it agreed with Causing’s legal argument, it upheld the RTC’s denial of the Motion to Quash because Causing did not provide evidence to prove when Hernandez discovered the Facebook posts. “The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents,” the Court stated.

    Practical Implications of the Ruling

    This ruling has significant implications for both individuals and legal professionals. The clarification of the prescriptive period for cyber libel provides much-needed certainty in this area of law.

    **Key Lessons:**

    * **One-Year Limit:** Individuals have one year from the date of discovery to file a cyber libel case.
    * **Discovery is Key:** The prescriptive period starts from the date the libelous material is discovered, not necessarily the date it was published.
    * **Burden of Proof:** The accused bears the burden of proving that the crime has prescribed.

    Consider this example: Maria posts a defamatory statement about Juan on Facebook on January 1, 2023. Juan discovers the post on June 1, 2023. Juan has until June 1, 2024, to file a cyber libel case against Maria.

    Furthermore, businesses must be mindful of their online presence and the potential for defamatory statements to be made about them. Monitoring social media and promptly addressing any libelous content is crucial to protecting their reputation. Failing to act within the one-year prescriptive period could mean losing the opportunity to pursue legal action.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    * **What is the difference between libel and cyber libel?**
    Libel is the public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice, or defect. Cyber libel is simply libel committed through a computer system or similar means.

    * **How long do I have to file a cyber libel case?**
    You have one year from the date of discovery of the libelous material to file a case.

    * **What if I didn’t discover the libelous statement until long after it was posted?**
    The prescriptive period starts from the date of discovery, not the date of publication. You will need to prove when you discovered the statement.

    * **Who has the burden of proving prescription?**
    The accused has the burden of proving that the crime has prescribed.

    * **Does this ruling mean I can’t file a cyber libel case if it’s been more than a year since the statement was posted?**
    If you discovered the statement more than a year before filing the case, it may be prescribed. However, it depends on when you discovered the libelous statement. It is best to consult with a lawyer to determine your options.

    * **What evidence do I need to prove when I discovered the libelous statement?**
    Evidence can include affidavits, emails, screenshots, or any other documentation that shows when you became aware of the statement.

    This Supreme Court decision provides clarity on the prescriptive period for cyber libel in the Philippines, ensuring that individuals and businesses are aware of their rights and obligations in the digital age.

    ASG Law specializes in defamation and cybercrime law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Cyber Libel and Retroactivity: Understanding Criminal Liability for Online Posts Before the Cybercrime Law

    The Supreme Court ruled that an individual cannot be held criminally liable for libelous Facebook posts made before the enactment of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. The Court emphasized that penal laws cannot be applied retroactively if they are unfavorable to the accused. This decision clarifies the scope of cyber libel and ensures that individuals are only prosecuted for actions that were criminalized at the time they were committed, aligning with the fundamental principle of legality in criminal law.

    From Facebook Post to Legal Battle: When Does Online Speech Become a Crime?

    This case arose from a Facebook post made by Jannece C. Peñalosa in 2011, which Jose A. Ocampo, Jr. claimed was libelous. Ocampo, Jr. filed a complaint, leading to an Information for libel being filed against Peñalosa. However, the Department of Justice later directed the City Prosecutor to withdraw the Information, arguing that there was no law penalizing “Internet Libel” at the time of the post. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) agreed and dismissed the case, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, holding that the post was punishable under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Peñalosa then appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning whether her actions could be retroactively penalized.

    The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the CA erred in ruling that Peñalosa’s Facebook post, made before the Cybercrime Prevention Act, could be prosecuted under Article 355 of the RPC. The Court had to determine if online libel could be considered a “similar means” of committing libel under the RPC and whether applying the Cybercrime Prevention Act retroactively would violate fundamental principles of criminal law.

    The Supreme Court began its analysis by addressing the procedural errors in the case. It emphasized that the proper remedy against a court order granting a motion to withdraw information is an appeal, not a petition for certiorari. The Court cited Rule 122, Section 1 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, which states that an appeal is the remedy against a judgment or final order. Certiorari is only appropriate when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available. The Court pointed out that an order granting a motion to withdraw information is a final order because it disposes of the case, leaving nothing for the court to do, as established in Santos v. Orda, Jr. The Court noted that Ocampo, Jr. should have filed an appeal, but instead, erroneously availed himself of a petition for certiorari.

    Moreover, the Court found that Ocampo, Jr. lacked the legal personality to file the petition questioning the RTC’s order. Citing People v. Court of Appeals, the Court reiterated the doctrine that in criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the private complainant’s interest is limited to the civil liability. Only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. As Ocampo, Jr.’s petition focused on Peñalosa’s criminal liability rather than civil damages, he had no standing to bring the petition without the prosecution’s concurrence.

    Turning to the substantive issue, the Supreme Court considered whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in granting the Motion to Withdraw Information. The Court defined grave abuse of discretion as the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, amounting to an evasion of a positive duty. The Supreme Court emphasized that judges must make an independent assessment of the lack of probable cause and the consequent withdrawal of the information.

    The Court contrasted the RTC’s actions with the perfunctory grant of a motion to withdraw information in Perez v. Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc. In this case, Judge Rizalina Capco-Umali made an exhaustive and independent assessment of Peñalosa’s Motion to Quash and the prosecution’s Motion to Withdraw Information. Judge Capco-Umali explicitly noted that on August 3, 2011, when the alleged libelous statements were posted, there was no law yet penalizing Internet Libel. The Cybercrime Prevention Act, which criminalized such acts, was only approved on September 12, 2012. The court’s order underscored the fundamental principle of Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege, which means there is no crime when there is no law punishing it.

    The Supreme Court addressed the apparent conflict with its earlier ruling in Disini v. Secretary of Justice, where it stated that “cyber libel is not a new crime.” However, the Court clarified that even if an allegedly libelous Facebook post could be prosecuted under the RPC, applying it retroactively would be unfavorable to the accused, violating Article 22 of the RPC. The Court emphasized that criminal laws should be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.

    The Supreme Court delved into the interpretation of Article 355 of the RPC, which addresses libel by means of writings or similar means. The Court applied the statutory construction rule of noscitur a sociis, which states that the meaning of an ambiguous word or phrase can be clarified by considering the company of words with which it is associated. In Article 355, the associated words include “writing,” “printing,” “lithography,” “engraving,” “radio,” “phonograph,” “painting,” “theatrical exhibition,” and “cinematographic exhibition.” These terms clearly exclude “computer systems or other similar means which may be derived in the future,” which were specifically added in Article 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

    To further illustrate this point, the Court presented a side-by-side comparison of Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 4(c)(a) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act in the following table:

    Article 355 of The Revised Penal Code
    Section 4(c)(a) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act
    ARTICLE 355. Libel by Means Writings or Similar Means. — A libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party. (Underscoring provided)
    SECTION 4. Cybercrime Offenses. — The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable under this Act:
    . . . .
    . . . .
    (c) Content-related Offenses:
    . . . .
    (4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future. (Underscoring provided)

    The Court reasoned that if Article 355 already included libel made through computer systems, there would have been no need for Congress to legislate Article 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act. This legislative action demonstrates that cyber libel is an additional means of committing libel, punishable only under the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

    The Supreme Court clarified that its ruling does not leave Ocampo, Jr. without recourse. He could still pursue a civil action for damages under Articles 19 to 21 of the Civil Code for any harm inflicted upon him by defamatory falsehoods. In civil actions, the complainant has full control of the case, unlike in criminal actions, where the complainant must defer to the prosecution.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether a person could be criminally liable for libelous Facebook posts made before the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 was enacted.
    What did the Supreme Court rule? The Supreme Court ruled that the individual could not be held criminally liable because the act was not criminalized at the time it was committed.
    What is the principle of Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege? This principle means that there is no crime when there is no law punishing it, preventing retroactive application of criminal laws.
    Why was a petition for certiorari considered an incorrect remedy in this case? The Court stated that the proper remedy against the RTC’s order granting the Motion to Withdraw Information was an appeal, not a petition for certiorari.
    What is the role of the Solicitor General in criminal appeals? The Solicitor General is the only one who may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal in criminal cases.
    What is the significance of the noscitur a sociis rule? The noscitur a sociis rule helps interpret ambiguous words by considering the context of the other words with which they are associated.
    What civil remedies are available to the offended party? The offended party can pursue a civil action for damages under Articles 19 to 21 of the Civil Code for harm caused by defamatory falsehoods.
    Does this ruling mean that cyber libel is not punishable? No, cyber libel is punishable under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, but it cannot be applied retroactively to acts committed before the law’s enactment.

    This case reinforces the principle that criminal laws cannot be applied retroactively if they are unfavorable to the accused. It clarifies the boundaries of cyber libel and provides a framework for understanding when online speech becomes a crime. The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that individuals are only prosecuted for actions that were criminalized at the time they were committed, upholding fundamental principles of justice and fairness.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: JANNECE C. PEÑALOSA v. JOSE A. OCAMPO, JR., G.R. No. 230299, April 26, 2023

  • Cyber Libel and Retroactivity: Protecting Free Speech in the Digital Age

    The Supreme Court ruled that an allegedly libelous Facebook post made in 2011, before the enactment of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, cannot be prosecuted under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court emphasized that criminal laws cannot be applied retroactively if they are unfavorable to the accused. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the principle of legality in criminal law, ensuring that individuals are only held liable for acts that were already defined as crimes at the time they were committed.

    From Facebook Post to Legal Battle: When Does Online Speech Become Criminal?

    This case originated from a Facebook post made by Jannece C. Peñalosa in 2011, containing derogatory remarks about Jose A. Ocampo, Jr. Ocampo, Jr. filed a libel complaint, leading to an Information being filed against Peñalosa. The Department of Justice (DOJ) initially ordered the withdrawal of the Information, reasoning that there was no law penalizing “Internet Libel” at the time of the post. Subsequently, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the case, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, arguing that the post was punishable under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The core legal question is whether a Facebook post made before the Cybercrime Prevention Act can be prosecuted under existing libel laws.

    The Supreme Court addressed several procedural and substantive issues. First, it clarified that the proper remedy against a court order granting a motion to withdraw information is an appeal, which may only be filed by the State through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). This ruling is based on the principle that in criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the private complainant’s interest is limited to the civil liability. The Court underscored that only the OSG can represent the People of the Philippines on appeal for the criminal aspect, citing People v. Court of Appeals, emphasizing that the private offended party may only appeal the civil aspect of the case.

    If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General. Only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. The private offended party or complainant may not take such appeal. However, the said offended party or complainant may appeal the civil aspect despite the acquittal of the accused.

    Building on this procedural point, the Court found that Ocampo, Jr., as the private offended party, did not have the legal personality to file the petition questioning the RTC’s order granting the Motion to Withdraw Information. Since his interest was limited to the civil liability, and his petition did not address civil liability, he lacked the standing to pursue the case further on the criminal aspect. The Court distinguished the case from Paredes v. Gopengco and People v. Calo, Jr., where private offended parties were allowed to bring actions on behalf of the People of the Philippines. In those cases, the orders being questioned were interlocutory, whereas in the present case, the order was a final one, making an appeal the proper remedy, which only the State could pursue.

    Turning to the substantive issue of whether the Facebook post was punishable under the RPC, the Court emphasized the principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege – there is no crime when there is no law punishing it. The Court analyzed Article 355 of the RPC, which defines libel as committed by means of “writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means.” The Court applied the statutory construction rule of noscitur a sociis, which holds that the meaning of an ambiguous word or phrase is determined by the words associated with it.

    Considering the associated words in Article 355, the Court concluded that “similar means” could not have included “online defamation” when the RPC was enacted in 1932. It highlighted that the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 specifically added “computer systems or other similar means which may be devised in the future” in Article 4(c)(4), indicating that libel done through computer systems, or cyber libel, is an additional means of committing libel, punishable only under the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

    This approach contrasts with the CA’s interpretation, which broadly construed Article 355 to include online defamation. The Supreme Court’s stricter interpretation aligns with the principle that criminal laws must be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused. To apply Article 355 retroactively to punish cyber libel would be to make a penal law effective retroactively but unfavorably to the accused, which is contrary to Article 22 of the RPC.

    Article 355 of The Revised Penal Code Section 4(c)(a) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act

    ARTICLE 355. Libel by Means Writings or Similar Means. — A libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party.

    SECTION 4. Cybercrime Offenses. — The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable under this Act:

    (c) Content-related Offenses:

    (4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.

    The Court acknowledged that while its resolution prevents the criminal prosecution of Peñalosa for cyber libel under the RPC, it does not leave Ocampo, Jr. without recourse. He may still pursue a civil action for damages under Articles 19 to 21 of the Civil Code, which provide remedies for harm inflicted by defamatory falsehoods. In civil actions, the complainant has full control of the case, unlike in criminal actions where the complainant must defer to the prosecution.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether an allegedly libelous Facebook post made before the enactment of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 could be prosecuted under the Revised Penal Code.
    What did the Supreme Court rule? The Supreme Court ruled that the post could not be prosecuted under the Revised Penal Code because criminal laws cannot be applied retroactively if they are unfavorable to the accused.
    Why couldn’t the Facebook post be considered libel under the Revised Penal Code? The Court found that the phrase “similar means” in Article 355 of the RPC did not include online defamation at the time the law was enacted. The Cybercrime Prevention Act specifically added computer systems as a means of committing libel.
    What is the principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege? It is a fundamental principle in criminal law that means there is no crime when there is no law punishing it. A person cannot be punished for an act that was not defined as a crime when it was committed.
    What is the role of the Solicitor General in criminal appeals? The Solicitor General is the only party authorized to represent the People of the Philippines in appeals of criminal cases. Private offended parties cannot appeal the criminal aspect of a case.
    Can the private offended party still pursue legal action? Yes, the private offended party can still pursue a civil action for damages under Articles 19 to 21 of the Civil Code.
    What is the significance of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 in this case? The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 explicitly included cyber libel as a crime, but it was not yet in effect when the Facebook post in question was made.
    What does noscitur a sociis mean? Noscitur a sociis is a rule of statutory construction that provides the meaning of an ambiguous word or phrase is determined by the words associated with it.
    What was the remedy taken by the respondent? The respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court said that the proper remedy against the Regional Trial Court’s Order granting the Motion to Withdraw Information is an appeal, not a petition for certiorari.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case reinforces the principle of legality and protects free speech by preventing the retroactive application of criminal laws. While individuals are accountable for their online actions, they can only be prosecuted under laws that were in effect at the time of the act. This ruling provides clarity on the application of libel laws in the context of social media and highlights the importance of adhering to due process and fundamental rights.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: JANNECE C. PEÑALOSA v. JOSE A. OCAMPO, JR., G.R. No. 230299, April 26, 2023