The advent of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175) introduced a significant shift in how defamation is prosecuted in the Philippines. Among the most litigated and debated aspects of this law is the prescription period—the timeframe within which a complainant must file a case before the right to do so expires.
The Nature of Cyber Libel
Cyber libel is essentially the traditional crime of libel, as defined under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.
While the elements of the crime remain largely the same (allegation of a vice, defect, or crime; publicity; malice; and identifiability of the victim), the penalty for cyber libel is one degree higher than that prescribed for traditional libel. This escalation in penalty is the primary reason for the extended prescription period.
The Prescription Period: One Year vs. Fifteen Years
For decades, traditional libel (committed via print or broadcast) carried a prescription period of one year, as explicitly stated in Article 90 of the RPC. However, the Cybercrime Prevention Act did not specify a prescription period for the new offense.
The Supreme Court Ruling (Tolentino v. People)
In the landmark case of Tolentino v. People (G.R. No. 240310) and further clarified in subsequent jurisprudence, the Supreme Court addressed the ambiguity. Because RA 10175 is a special law and does not provide its own prescriptive period, Act No. 3326 (the law governing prescription for violations of special acts) applies.
- Traditional Libel: Prescribes in one (1) year.
- Cyber Libel: Prescribes in fifteen (15) years.
The Court reasoned that since the penalty for cyber libel is prision mayor (due to the one-degree penalty increase), it falls under the category of offenses that prescribe in 15 years under Act No. 3326.
Important Note: This 15-year window provides complainants with a significantly longer period to seek legal redress compared to traditional libel, a fact that has sparked ongoing debate regarding its impact on freedom of expression.
When Does the Period Start?
The prescriptive period begins to run from the day the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents. In the context of the internet, this is generally the date the defamatory post was published or when the victim first became aware of it.
The "Multiple Publication" vs. "Single Publication" Rule
In the Philippines, the Multiple Publication Rule is generally followed. This means that every time a defamatory statement is republished (e.g., shared or re-posted), a new cause of action may arise, potentially resetting the clock or creating a new offense. However, the mere continued existence of a post on a timeline (without new interaction or sharing) is typically viewed through the lens of the initial publication date.
Procedural Steps for Filing
Filing a cyber libel case involves a specific legal process:
- Preservation of Evidence: The complainant must secure "hashes" or certified screenshots of the defamatory material. Simple screenshots are often insufficient; they must be authenticated under the Rules on Electronic Evidence.
- Affidavit-Complaint: The victim must prepare a sworn statement detailing the elements of the crime and attach the preserved evidence.
- Preliminary Investigation: The complaint is filed with the Office of the City or Provincial Prosecutor where the complainant resides or where the defamatory post was accessed.
- Jurisdiction: Cyber libel cases are specialized. They are handled by Regional Trial Courts (RTC) designated as "Cybercrime Courts."
Summary Table: Traditional vs. Cyber Libel
| Feature | Traditional Libel (RPC) | Cyber Libel (RA 10175) |
|---|---|---|
| Medium | Print, Radio, Television | Computer systems/Internet |
| Penalty | Prision correccional | Prision mayor (One degree higher) |
| Prescription | 1 Year | 15 Years |
| Governing Law | Revised Penal Code | RA 10175 & Act No. 3326 |
Grounds for Dismissal
A cyber libel charge may be dismissed if:
- The prescription period has lapsed.
- The element of malice is absent (e.g., fair commentaries on matters of public interest).
- The complainant is not identifiable from the post.
- The post constitutes "privileged communication" (e.g., statements made in judicial proceedings).