SC rules on filing of cyber libel cases

Within 1 year from discovery of libelous online posts

MANILA, Philippines — Complaints of cyber libel must be filed within one year from the time the victims discovered the libelous online posts, according to the Supreme Court.

Voting 8-7, the SC affirmed a 2023 ruling that the prescriptive period for cyber libel cases should be one year from the discovery of the offense, as provided under Republic Act 10175 (RA) or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

In affirming the prescriptive period, the high tribunal denied with finality the partial motions filed by disbarred lawyer Berteni Causing and the Office of the Solicitor General.

The OSG represents the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 93, which found Causing guilty of cyber libel based on a complaint filed by Rep. Ferdinand Hernandez of South Cotabato.

The high court rejected the OSG’s plea for a 15-year prescriptive period for the filing of cyber libel cases.

The SC debunked Causing’s arguments that the prescriptive period should start on the day the libelous material was posted “because online posts are more widespread compared to written publications.”

The resolution, penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, was concurred in by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, and SC Associate Justices Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, Samuel Gaerlan, Jose Midas Marquez, Maria Filomena Singh and Rodil Zalameda.

Associate Justices Japar Dimaampao, Ramon Paul Hernando, Amy Lazaro-Javier, Antonio Kho Jr., Jhosep Lopez, Ricardo Rosario and Raul Villanueva voted against the one-year period.

In a dissenting opinion, Kho said that libel committed through computer systems is punishable under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, and the one-year prescriptive period for traditional libel does not apply.

“Due to changes in the nature of the crime from libel to cyber libel brought about by the qualifying aggravating circumstance of the use of ICT (information and communications technology), the one-year prescriptive period provided under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code is no longer controlling as it is only applicable to traditional libel.

Considering that the penalty for cyber libel is from four to eight years in prison, Kho said the prescriptive period should be 15 years from the discovery of the defamatory remark.

Doctor gets 70 years for cyber libel

Meanwhile, a doctor tagged in the 2022 Ateneo shooting is facing 70 years in prison after he was found guilty of multiple counts of cyber libel.

In a ruling promulgated on Friday, Judge Retrina Fuentes of the Davao Regional Trial Court Branch 10 convicted Chao-Tiao Yumol, 42, of two counts of violation of RA 10175.

In February, Yumol was also found guilty of two counts of cyber libel, which stemmed from a complaint filed in 2019 by private complainant Maria Gloria Pangilinan.

Yumol was sentenced to up to six years in prison and was ordered to pay P100,000 and P20,000 in moral and exemplary damages, respectively.

Esguerra said Yumol has been facing 63 cyber libel complaints filed over several years by multiple complainants including the late Lamitan City mayor Rosita Furigay and her husband, incumbent Mayor Roderick Furigay.

In the latest ruling involving complaints filed by the Furigays, the court found Yumol guilty in 12 of 26 counts of the offense.

Each conviction carries a penalty of five to seven years in prison, and fines of P100,000 and P20,000 in moral and exemplary damages, respectively, for each count of the offense.

Esguerra said that despite the death of Furigay in 2022, the court allowed the cases to proceed as the late mayor’s prior testimony remained admissible as evidence.

Furigay was shot dead along with two others while attending the graduation ceremony of her daughter at the Ateneo de Manila University in Quezon City.

Yumol was arrested after the attack.

Esguerra said that criminal liability is not extinguished if the complainant had given a complete testimony before her death. — Roel Pareño