20/04/2026
The (SC) has affirmed its previous ruling that cyber libel prescribes one year from the time it is discovered, holding that โcyber libelโ is not a new crime but a form of โlibelโ under Art. 355 of the ๐๐ฆ๐ท๐ช๐ด๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฆ that is committed through a computer system or other similar means.
In a Resolution written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC ๐๐ฏ ๐๐ข๐ฏ๐ค denied the separate motions for reconsideration filed by Berteni Cataluรฑa Causing and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
In December 2020, Cotabato Second District Representative Ferdinand L. Hernandez filed a cyber libel complaint with the prosecutor against Causing related to Facebook posts accusing Hernandez of pocketing over PHP 200 million in relief goods for Marawi victims. Hernandez stated he discovered the posts on February 4 and April 29, 2019.
Informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Causing in May 2021. He filed a motion to quash the Informations, arguing that they were already time-barred under the RPC because more than one year had passed since the posts were uploaded.
The RTC denied the motion, ruling that cyber libel prescribes in 12 years under ๐๐ฆ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ช๐ค ๐๐ค๐ต ๐๐ฐ. (๐๐) 10175 or the ๐๐บ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ค๐ณ๐ช๐ฎ๐ฆ ๐๐ณ๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐๐ค๐ต.
Causing appealed to the SC, which clarified that the prescriptive period for cyber libel is one year from the date of discovery, consistent with traditional libel under the RPC. The Court rejected Causingโs motion to quash the Informations due to insufficient proof that the offense had already prescribed, highlighting that he can present evidence during the trial at the RTC.
Both the OSG and Causing filed separate partial motions for reconsideration.
The OSG argued that the one-year prescriptive period for traditional libel under the RPC should not apply to cyber libel. Instead, it should be 15 years under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, as previously decided by the Supreme Court through an unsigned resolution in Tolentino v. People.
Causing, on the other hand, argued that the prescription for cyber libel should start from the publication date rather than from discovery. He contended that online posts are more widespread than traditional forms of publication. If the discovery rule is applied, cyber libel charges could be filed several years after the post was made, as long as the offended party discovered it later.
The SC rejected both arguments.
Under the RPC, written libel prescribes in one year. There is no law that excludes cyber libel from this one-year period, and Congress has consistently treated libel as having a shorter prescriptive period than other crimes, even when penalties are increased.
The SC reiterated that cyber libel is not a separate crime, but rather libel committed through a computer system. The fact that the Cybercrime Prevention Act imposes a higher penalty for cyber libel does not imply that its prescriptive period should be extended beyond that of traditional libel.
The SC added that when laws on the prescription of crimes are unclear, they must be interpreted in favor of the accused. Since the RPC sets a one-year prescriptive period for cyber libel, it prevails over the 15-year period set in the case of Tolentino v. People, which is an unsigned resolution.
The SC also affirmed that prescription begins upon discovery of the offense, not upon publication. The law clearly states that prescription runs from the time the crime is discovered by the offended party or the authorities.
Seven other Justices joined Justice Inting in the majority. They are:
โข Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo
โข Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen
โข Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa
โข Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda
โข Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan
โข Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez
โข Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh
In his Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen argued that the one-year prescription period should apply only to libel cases against private individuals. He added that libel against public figures should be decriminalized, as punishing comments and criticisms directed at public officials discourages free and uninhibited discussion about how those in public office conduct themselves.
In his Concurring Opinion, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa stressed that the prescriptive period for libel has always been fixed at one or two years, never at 10 or more years.
Meanwhile, six other Justices joined Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr. in his dissent:
โข Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando
โข Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier
โข Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario
โข Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez
โข Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao
โข Associate Justice Raul B. Villanueva
In his Concurring and Dissenting opinion, Justice Kho, Jr. agreed with the majority that unsigned resolutions do not lay down doctrines of law but disagreed on the prescriptive period for cyber libel. Since cyber libel is committed through computer systems and is punishable under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, it is a separate crime from libel and the one-year prescriptive period for libel does not apply.
Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163671
Read the full text of the Resolution at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163636
Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163642
Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-admin/post.php?p=163650
Read the Concurring and Dissenting OpinionOpinion of Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr. at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163661
Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIOโs Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution
