1) Why “prescription” matters in cyber libel

In Philippine criminal law, prescription of offenses is the rule that sets a time limit within which the State must commence a criminal action. Once the prescriptive period expires (and no valid interruption applies), the accused may seek dismissal because the State’s right to prosecute has lapsed.

Cyber libel is often litigated on prescription because the act may be a single online post, content may remain accessible for years, and parties frequently dispute when the period started and whether it was interrupted.

2) Key legal sources you need to read together

Cyber libel sits at the intersection of these laws:

Revised Penal Code (RPC)
- Libel is punished under Article 355, with procedural rules under Article 360.
- General prescription rules for crimes under the RPC appear in Articles 90–91.
Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012)
- Treats certain offenses committed through ICT (information and communications technology) as cybercrimes or cybercrime-related offenses, including “cyber libel” (commonly understood as libel committed through a computer system or similar means).
- Provides that when a crime like libel is committed through ICT, the penalty is generally one degree higher than its RPC counterpart (subject to statutory wording and how courts apply it).
Act No. 3326 (Prescription of Offenses Punished by Special Acts)
- Governs prescription for offenses punished by special laws (as distinct from the RPC), unless the special law provides its own prescription period.

The hard part is deciding which prescription statute applies to cyber libel: the RPC’s one-year rule for libel, or Act 3326’s longer periods for special laws. Philippine jurisprudence has treated cyber libel prescription as not automatically the same as ordinary libel.

3) Ordinary libel vs. cyber libel: different prescriptive periods

A) Ordinary libel (RPC)

The RPC contains a specific rule: libel prescribes in one (1) year (a special clause in Article 90, distinct from the general penalty-based periods).

Result: If you’re dealing with ordinary libel (e.g., printed publication or other non-cyber contexts punished as RPC libel), the baseline prescriptive period is 1 year, subject to interruption rules.

B) Cyber libel (RA 10175)

Cyber libel is prosecuted under RA 10175’s cybercrime framework (even though the defamatory act is defined by the libel concept in the RPC). Courts have treated cyber libel, for prescription purposes, as falling under the regime of a special law—meaning Act 3326 is used to compute the period.

Under Act 3326, the prescriptive period depends mainly on the maximum imposable imprisonment:

If punishable by imprisonment of six (6) years or more → twelve (12) years
If punishable by imprisonment of less than six (6) years → eight (8) years
If punishable by fine only (or where fine is the sole penalty) → two (2) years (When both fine and imprisonment are imposable, practice is to follow the period for the more serious penalty.)

Because cyber libel is generally treated as penalized more severely than ordinary libel (often reaching 6+ years due to the “one degree higher” rule), the prescriptive period typically applied is twelve (12) years.

Practical takeaway:

Libel (RPC): 1 year
Cyber libel (RA 10175): commonly treated as 12 years under Act 3326, assuming the imposable imprisonment meets the “6 years or more” threshold.

4) When does the prescriptive period start running?

This is often the decisive issue.

A) General starting point concepts

Prescription generally begins from:

the day the offense is committed, or
the day the offense is discovered (depending on the governing statute and the kind of offense), and it is interrupted by the institution of proceedings (more below).

B) For defamatory publication: “publication” is central

Defamation hinges on publication—communication of the defamatory matter to at least one person other than the person defamed.

For online content, “publication” typically aligns with:

the time the post is uploaded/made available such that third persons can access it, or
the time it is actually accessed by third persons (this may be argued, but many cases treat posting publicly as sufficient publication).

Common prosecution theory: the offense is committed when the post is made publicly available online (first publication). Common defense theory: pin the clock to the earliest provable date of posting and argue that later views don’t restart prescription.

C) “Discovery” disputes

In some disputes, complainants argue prescription should run from the date they learned of the post (discovery), especially if the post was not reasonably discoverable earlier.

Expect litigation over:

whether the offended party truly discovered it later, and
whether authorities could have discovered it earlier with reasonable diligence.

5) Does continued online availability restart the clock?

A) The “continuing offense” argument

Complainants sometimes argue that because a post remains online, the crime is “continuing,” and prescription does not run until the post is taken down.

Typical defense response: cyber libel is not a continuing crime merely because the content remains accessible; the offense was consummated upon first publication, and continued availability is a continuing effect, not a continuing commission.

B) Republication can matter

While mere persistence of the same post is commonly treated as not restarting prescription, republication can create a new actionable publication, such as:

reposting the same content anew,
posting it again on a different platform/account,
a material edit and renewed dissemination that effectively republishes,
a fresh act intended to re-circulate the defamatory statement.

Whether an edit, share, quote-tweet, or cross-post is “republication” depends heavily on the facts and how the content was re-communicated.

6) What interrupts prescription in cyber libel?

Interruption rules are frequently outcome-determinative.

A) Institution of proceedings

As a working rule in Philippine criminal procedure, prescription is interrupted by steps that amount to the institution of criminal proceedings—commonly:

filing of a complaint with the Office of the Prosecutor for preliminary investigation, and/or
filing of the Information in court (depending on stage and the specific offense/procedure).

In practice, parties litigate whether a particular filing was:

timely,
filed in the correct forum,
sufficient to interrupt prescription, and
pursued without undue gaps.

B) Complaint requirement and who must file

Libel under the RPC has special procedural rules: criminal action is generally initiated by complaint of the offended party (with certain exceptions, such as public officers in relation to official duties).

In cyber libel practice, expect issues such as:

whether the complainant is the proper offended party,
whether the complaint is properly verified or supported,
and whether the filing that occurred is the kind that interrupts prescription.

C) Effect of dismissal and refiling

If a complaint is dismissed and later refiled, prescription issues may arise regarding:

whether the earlier filing validly interrupted prescription,
whether interruption ceased upon dismissal, and
whether time that elapsed before refiling should be counted.

7) Computing the period: a practical framework

Step 1: Identify the offense charged

Is the case ordinary libel (RPC) or cyber libel (RA 10175)?

Step 2: Choose the governing prescription law

RPC libel → RPC Article 90 (1 year)
Cyber libel → typically Act 3326 (often 12 years)

Step 3: Determine the start date

Common anchor dates include:

date/time of first public posting,
earliest date of publication to third persons,
or date of discovery (if the applicable statute and facts support it).

Step 4: Identify interruptions

Mark dates such as:

filing of complaint with the prosecutor,
commencement of preliminary investigation steps attributable to the filing,
filing of Information in court.

Step 5: Count elapsed time excluding interrupted periods (as applicable)

Your computation should be explicit:

“From [date] to [date] = ___”
“Interrupted on [date] by [event]”
“Resumed on [date] because [reason]” (if that’s the applicable rule)

8) Edge issues unique to online libel

A) Anonymous accounts and identification delays

If the poster is anonymous and identification requires subpoenas to platforms/telcos, complainants may argue “discovery” occurred only when they learned who the author was. Defenses often counter that discovery of the defamatory publication (not the author’s identity) is what matters.

B) Cross-border posting and venue complications

Online content may be posted abroad or accessed in multiple locations. Venue disputes can affect the procedural timeline (e.g., if the complaint was filed in a venue later found improper), and prescription arguments often ride on those procedural outcomes.

C) Multiple accused

If multiple persons are implicated (author, editor/admin, sharer), prescription may be analyzed per person depending on when probable involvement is alleged and when proceedings were instituted against each.

9) Common prescription defenses and prosecution responses

Defense themes

The correct prescriptive period is shorter (attempting to analogize to ordinary libel’s 1-year rule, depending on the charge and controlling doctrine).
The clock started at first publication, not later discovery.
The case was filed late with no valid interruption.
The “new acts” alleged are not republications but mere continued availability or passive engagement.

Prosecution themes

Cyber libel prescription is governed by Act 3326 (often longer).
Prescription started upon discovery in fact and in law.
Timely filing with the prosecutor interrupted prescription.
Subsequent reposting/editing constituted republication.

10) Bottom line rules to remember

Ordinary libel (RPC) has a 1-year prescriptive period.
Cyber libel (RA 10175) is generally treated, for prescription, under Act 3326, commonly resulting in a 12-year period (especially where the imposable imprisonment meets the “6 years or more” bracket).
The most litigated points are:
- start date (first publication vs discovery),
- interruption (what filings count, and when), and
- whether later online activity is republication or merely a continuing effect.

Legal note

This is a general legal article for informational purposes in the Philippine context and is not a substitute for advice on a specific case, where the exact charge, dates, filings, and procedural history control the prescription analysis.