15/08/2026
SUPREME COURT: CYBER LIBEL PRESCRIBES IN ONE YEAR, NOT 15 YEARS
The Supreme Court has ruled that cyber libel prescribes in one year, rejecting the argument that the offense should be subject to the 15-year prescriptive period applicable to crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties.
In its En Banc Resolution¹ dated April 8, 2026, the Court explained that cyber libel is not an entirely new crime created by the Cybercrime Prevention Act. Rather, it is libel as defined under Article 353, in relation to Article 355, of the Revised Penal Code, committed through a computer system or information and communications technology (ICT).
The Court noted that Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act, expressly refers to libel under the Revised Penal Code. Section 6 of the same law merely provides for a penalty one degree higher when crimes under the Revised Penal Code or special laws are committed through ICT. Thus, the use of a computer system constitutes a qualifying circumstance that increases the penalty; it does not transform cyber libel into an entirely different offense for purposes of prescription.
The Court therefore applied Article 90, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, which specifically provides that “libel or other similar offenses” prescribe in one year. The fact that cyber libel carries a heavier penalty does not, by itself, place it under the 15-year prescriptive period in Article 90, paragraph 2.
The Court further emphasized that the Legislature has historically treated libel differently from other offenses carrying comparable penalties. Republic Act No. 4661 shortened the prescriptive period for libel to one year, in part to synchronize it with the one-year period for civil actions involving defamation under Article 1147 of the Civil Code.
Applying the principle that penal laws on prescription must be construed in favor of the accused, the Court held that the one-year period under Article 90, paragraph 4 governs cyber libel.
Thus, while cyber libel carries a penalty one degree higher because it is committed through ICT, the prescriptive period remains one year. The Court denied the motions for partial reconsideration with finality.
FOOTNOTES
1 Causing v. People, SC En Banc, (2026) Per Inting, J. [https://dlsurf.com/l/f0a673e]
