PRESCRIPTION PERIOD FOR CYBER LIBEL IN THE PHILIPPINES A Comprehensive Legal Overview (July 2025)
1 | Why Prescription Matters
The prescriptive period (statute of limitations) determines how long the State may validly prosecute an act of cyber libel. If the period lapses, courts lose jurisdiction and the accused is entitled to an acquittal or dismissal on that ground alone.
2 | The Statutory Building‑Blocks
| Source | Key Provision | Relevance to Cyber Libel |
|---|---|---|
| Revised Penal Code (RPC) | Art. 355 (libel), Art. 90‑91 (prescription, interruption) | Provides the baseline one‑year prescriptive period for traditional libel and the rules on when prescription runs and stops. |
| Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175) | § 4(c)(4) (defines cyber libel); § 6 (penalty one degree higher than Art. 355) | Creates the distinct felony of cyber libel and imposes the penalty of prisión mayor minimum to medium (6 years + 1 day – 12 years) plus fine. |
| Act No. 3326 (1926) | General law on prescription of offenses punished by special laws | Supplies prescriptive periods when the special law is silent: 12 years when imprisonment is >6 years but ≤12 years. |
Observation: RA 10175 is silent on prescription; hence courts and prosecutors look to Act 3326 unless they deem Art. 90 RPC to govern by analogy.
3 | Three Theories on the Length of Prescription
| Theory | How Computed | Period Produced | Status in Practice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Analogous‑RPC Theory | Apply Art. 355 (libel) → 1‑year | 1 year | Raised by defense in many cases; accepted by some prosecutors pre‑2016 but now minority view. |
| Afflictive‑Penalty RPC Theory | Treat cyber libel as an afflictive crime under the RPC (prisión mayor) → Art. 90 | 15 years | Academically posited but seldom adopted because RA 10175 is a special law. |
| Act 3326 Theory (Prevailing) | Use Act 3326 table (>6 ≤12 yrs) | 12 years | Endorsed by DOJ Circulars and applied by RTCs, the Court of Appeals, and the Sandiganbayan; now the operative rule pending definitive Supreme Court pronouncement. |
4 | Key Jurisprudence & Policy Milestones
| Year | Authority | Holding / Guidance |
|---|---|---|
| 2014 | Disini v. Secretary of Justice | Cyber libel upheld as valid offense; prescription not tackled. |
| 2017 | DOJ Resolutions in People v. Ressa et al. | Adopted 12‑year period under Act 3326. |
| 2020 | Manila RTC Conviction (Ressa) | Reaffirmed 12‑year prescriptive period; counted from republication date (2014 correction), not original 2012 posting. |
| 2022 | CA‑G.R. CR No. 16388 (Ressa appeal) | Sustained conviction; expressly ruled Act 3326 governs, giving 12 years. |
| 2023–2025 | Petitions for Review (SC) | Still sub judice as of July 2025; no final Supreme Court ruling yet. |
| DOJ Circular No. 13‑2019 | Prosecutorial policy | Directs prosecutors to apply Act 3326 for cyber libel prescription. |
5 | When Does the Clock Start and Stop?
Commencement (Art. 91 RPC, applied by analogy)
- Prescription runs from the date of publication or the date the offended party or authorities could have discovered it with reasonable diligence, whichever is earlier.
- For on‑line articles, publication is accessible worldwide the moment it goes live.
The “Single v. Multiple Publication” Debate
- Classical rule: one‐year period for every print issue (single publication).
- Cyber context: Courts increasingly follow the “multiple‑publication” approach—any substantial republication (e.g., editing, re‑upload, social‑media repost) resets prescription, as seen in Ressa.
Interruption (Art. 91)
- Filing a sworn complaint with the Office of the Prosecutor interrupts prescription—even before a formal Information is filed.
- The period begins to run again if proceedings are dismissed or indefinitely suspended for reasons not attributable to the accused.
Absence from the Philippines
- Prescription is suspended while the accused is outside the country. The State bears the burden of proof for the accused’s absence.
6 | Practical Compliance Guide (2025 Edition)
| Actor | Best Practice |
|---|---|
| Would‑be Complainant | File the complaint well within one year of first publication to be safe, but remember you may still prosecute up to 12 years under prevailing doctrine. Gather proof of each act of republication to extend the period. |
| Accused / Defense Counsel | Always plead prescription as an affirmative defense. Question: (a) whether the complained‑of act is original or a new republication, and (b) whether the complaint was timely filed before the Office of the Prosecutor. |
| Editors & Platform Owners | Any update to a post—headline tweaks, correcting typographical errors, adding photos—may be construed as republication. Implement version‑control logs and archiving policies. |
| Prosecutors | Follow DOJ Circular 13‑2019 absent contrary Supreme Court guidance. If facts show first publication beyond 12 years, dismiss outright. |
| Judges | Ascertain (1) the exact date of first publication, (2) existence and nature of republications, (3) timeliness of the complaint’s filing, and (4) periods of suspension. |
7 | Legislative & Policy Reform Landscape
- Decriminalization Bills. Successive Congresses (18th–19th) have filed bills to decriminalize libel or reduce penalties to avoid the afflictive‐penalty straitjacket that triggers the 12‑year prescription. As of July 2025 none has become law.
- Penalty Calibration Bills. Other proposals seek to retain criminal libel but restore the prisión correccional range—this would shorten prescription to 5 years under Act 3326 or 1 year under Art. 90 RPC, depending on wording.
- Right‑of‑Reply Measures. Some drafts offer a civil remedy and require platforms to publish prompt corrections, aiming to make criminal action a last resort.
8 | Synthesis & Takeaways
- Doctrine in Flux. Until the Supreme Court issues a square ruling, lower courts and prosecutors continue to apply 12 years via Act 3326.
- Constitutional Lens. Critics argue that the 12‑year window chills speech; supporters say it is a logical corollary of the higher penalty Congress expressly chose.
- Recommended Caution. For complainants, the safest view is to prosecute within one year; for potential defendants, contemporaneous record‑keeping of all online edits is critical.
- Watch the Supreme Court. Any ruling on the pending Ressa petition or similar cases could reset the doctrinal clock overnight.
9 | Appendix — Quick Reference Table
| Offense | Statutory Source | Penalty | Prescriptive Period (Current Practice) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional Libel | RPC Art. 355 | Prisión correccional (6 mos + 1 day – 6 yrs) or fine | 1 year (Art. 90, settled) |
| Cyber Libel | RA 10175 § 4(c)(4) & § 6 | Prisión mayor (6 yrs + 1 day – 12 yrs) + fine | 12 years (Act 3326, prevailing) |
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only as of 25 July 2025 and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult counsel or verify the latest Supreme Court rulings before acting on any specific case.