In appeal, Ressa and Santos question prescriptive period for cyber libel
MANILA, Philippines — Rappler CEO Maria Ressa and former researcher Reynaldo Santos have appealed the Court of Appeals' affirmation of their cyberlibel conviction.
In a 31-page motion for reconsideration, Ressa and Santos — through their lawyers from the Free Legal Assistance Group — asked the Court of Appeals Fourth Division to reconsider its July 7 order that upheld the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 46's ruling finding them guilty of cyber libel.
They asked the CA to set aside the Manila court’s ruling and acquit them of the crime.
In their motion, they argued that the CA "erred in holding that the offense of cyberlibel against appellants has not prescribed and that the period of prescription should be 15 years and not one year."
A prescriptive period is the maximum period set by law that legal action, like filing a complaint, can be brought forward. Complaints can no longer be filed after that period.
When the CA resolved their petition, it agreed with the local court that cybercrime law increased the penalty of libel by one degree, "qualified by the use of information and communication technologies."
This supposedly makes the crime punishable by "prision correctional in its maximum period (from 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years) to prision mayor in its minimum period from ( 6 years and 1 day to 8 years)."
"Considering the increase of penalty by one degree pursuant to Section 6 of Cybercrime Law, the penalty for cyberlibel becomes afflictive and shall prescribe in 15 years, following Articles 25 and 9 of the Revised Penal Code," it said.
Citing the case Wilbert Tolentino v. People, the CA ruling cited Articles 25 (penalties which may be imposed) and 9 (Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies). This, while the lower court cited Article No. 3326, which applies to offenses punishable by special laws without their own prescriptive period.
The case was seen as a test case for the cyber libel provision of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
'Prescription should be one year'
Counsel for Ressa and Santos pointed out that while the Cybercrime Prevention Act aggravated penalties when ‘computer systems’ are involved, “it intentionally remained silent on the prescriptive period of libel.”
They stressed that the Revised Penal Code already provides a one-year prescriptive period for "libel and other offenses" without regard to the penalty attached to it.
"For this Court to entangle the penalty attached to libel with its prescriptive period goes far beyond judicial interpretation because Article 90 of the RPC is clear and requires no interpretation: libel or other similar offenses, regardless of penalty, shall prescribe in one year," their motion read.
"In other words, there was no need to apply the guidelines on determining the prescriptive period based on libel’s penalty because the legislature had already clearly and unmistakably provided for it: the crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year," they said.
They also claimed the court was wrong in relying on Wilbert Tolentino v. People as the case was resolved through an unsigned resolution and following the Supreme Court’s Internal Rules, it has no doctrinal value and meaningful only to parties.
Ressa and Santos are currently out on post-conviction bail. The case is largely seen as a test case for the young Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and may reach the Supreme Court.
Ressa and Rappler are also facing a slew of other cases, including the Securities and Exchange Commission’s upheld order to shut down the news company as the regulatory body “affirmed its earlier decision to revoke the certificates of incorporation of Rappler Inc. and Rappler Holdings Corporation (RHC).”
- Latest
- Trending
