Prescription Period for Filing Cyber Libel Cases in the Philippines (Updated 25 July 2025 – for academic discussion only; not a substitute for professional legal advice)
1 | Key Statutes & Doctrines
| Source | Relevant Text | Take‑away |
|---|---|---|
| Revised Penal Code (RPC), Art. 355 | Defines libel; imposes prisión correccional min.–med. (6 mos 1 day – 4 yrs 2 mos) or a fine. | Baseline offence. |
| RPC, Arts. 90–91 | Crimes punished by prisión correccional prescribe in 1 year; the period runs “from the day on which the offence is discovered… or from the date of first publication” and is tolled by filing with the prosecutor or by the accused’s absence. | Traditional libel = 1‑year prescriptive period. |
| Republic Act 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012), §§ 4(c)(4), 6 | (a) Creates cyber libel by “committing libel as defined in Art. 355 through an information and communications technology (ICT) medium.” (b) Imposes a penalty one degree higher than that for the underlying RPC crime. | Raises the penalty to prisión correccional max. – prisión mayor min. (4 yrs 2 mos 1 day – 8 yrs). |
| RA 3326 (1926, as amended) | Provides the default prescriptive periods for special‑law offences unless the special law states its own period. Where the penalty is > 6 yrs but < 12 yrs, the action prescribes in 12 years. | Cited by those who argue that cyber libel prescribes in 12 years. |
2 | Why Cyber Libel’s Prescription Is Controversial
“Is cyber libel still RPC libel?” Section 4(c)(4) incorporates Art. 355 by reference; it does not create an entirely new crime. Supporters of the 1‑year rule claim that cyber libel is merely qualified libel, so Art. 90 still governs.
Penalty Enhancement vs. Special‑Law Status Section 6 elevates the penalty by one degree. Because the penalty now exceeds six years, prosecutors have argued that RA 3326’s 12‑year default attaches (since RA 10175 is itself a special law). This gives rise to the 12‑year rule.
Doctrinal Tension
- 1‑Year Theory: Cyber libel remains an “offence under the RPC,” merely aggravated by ICT; therefore the special rule in Art. 90 prevails, and prescription is one (1) year.
- 12‑Year Theory: The ICT element makes it a distinct special‑law felony; RA 3326 fills the gap, so prescription is twelve (12) years.
3 | Jurisprudence & Administrative Practice (as of July 2025)
| Level | Case / Issuance | Ruling on Prescription |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. 203335 (11 Feb 2014) | Sustained the constitutionality of cyber libel, but deliberately left prescription unanswered. |
| Court of Appeals | People v. Silva, CA‑GR CR‑HC 109037 (24 May 2018) | Dismissed a cyber‑libel information filed > 1 yr after posting; held Art. 90 still controls. |
| AAA v. BBB, CA‑GR SP 158567 (6 Oct 2020) | Affirmed prosecutor’s finding that the offence had not prescribed because RA 3326 applies → 12 yrs. | |
| DOJ Office of Cybercrime | Opinion (14 Aug 2019) | Endorsed the 12‑year view “to give full effect to RA 10175’s policy,” but noted the need for SC guidance. |
| Regional Trial Courts | Numerous conflicting orders 2019‑2024 | Some quash Informations filed after 1 yr; others uphold them, citing RA 3326. |
Bottom line: There is no definitive Supreme Court ruling. Trial judges currently decide ad hoc; appeals often hinge on whether the Information was filed within one or twelve years.
4 | Computing the Prescriptive Period
Date of “Publication.”
- The prevailing rule for libel is the “first‑publication rule.” Once content is first made publicly accessible (e.g., timestamp of the social‑media post or blog upload), prescription starts.
- The “continuing‑access” argument—that each view/chat restart resets the clock—has been rejected by both the SC (in dicta) and the CA, to avoid infinite exposure.
Interruption & Suspension.
- Interruption: Filing a sworn complaint with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor or the NBI/PNP‑ACG within the period tolls prescription (Art. 91, RPC).
- Suspension: The clock is paused while the accused is outside the Philippines or cannot be located.
Filing vs. Institution.
- For cyber libel, institution still occurs upon filing with the prosecutor, not upon final DOJ resolution. Therefore, complainants should lodge their affidavit well within the period they believe applies.
5 | Practical Scenarios
| Scenario | What triggers the clock? | Safe‑harbor deadline (1‑yr view) | Safe‑harbor deadline (12‑yr view) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facebook post on 1 Jan 2024, publicly visible. | Timestamp of the original post. | 31 Dec 2024 | 31 Dec 2035 |
| Private post discovered only on 1 Jun 2024 (e.g., shared in a closed group). | Date of discovery by offended party. | 31 May 2025 | 31 May 2036 |
| Article first uploaded 1 Mar 2022, then edited 1 Mar 2023. | First upload unless the edit introduces the defamatory material for the first time. | 28 Feb 2023 (if libellous from outset) | 28 Feb 2034 |
6 | Civil & Administrative Counterparts
Civil Defamation (Art. 33, Civil Code)
- Allows an independent civil action for damages.
- Prescriptive period: 4 years (Art. 1146, Civil Code).
- May proceed even after the criminal action is time‑barred.
Professional & Public‑service Rules
- Offensive online posts can also violate the Code of Professional Responsibility (for lawyers), RA 6713 (for public officials), or agency‑specific social‑media policies. Each has its own statute of limitations.
7 | Legislative & Policy Developments
| Proposal | Status (July 2025) | Effect on Prescription |
|---|---|---|
| House Bill 5717 / Senate Bill 2196 – “Online Defamation Act” | Pending in both chambers; seeks to de‑criminalise libel and impose administrative fines. | Would moot criminal prescription; civil action only. |
| Senate hearings on Cybercrime Act amendments | Working drafts circulated 2024‑2025 propose an explicit 3‑year period for cyber libel. | Would resolve the 1 yr vs 12 yr controversy prospectively. |
8 | Strategic Tips
| For Complainants | For Accused / Defense Counsel |
|---|---|
| • File early. Assume the stricter 1‑year period until the SC rules. • Gather metadata (URL, post ID, server logs) to prove first publication/discovery dates. • Lodge a complaint first; you can supplement evidence later. |
• Ascertain timelines. Demand proof of first publication; invoke Art. 90 if > 1 year has lapsed. • Move to quash Information under Rule 117 if time‑barred. • Preserve screenshots showing the original upload date. |
9 | Key Take‑aways
- No settled doctrine yet. The Supreme Court has not definitively fixed cyber libel’s prescriptive period; lower courts swing between 1 year (RPC view) and 12 years (RA 3326 view).
- Computation starts on first publication (or discovery, for private posts), not on each subsequent “view.”
- Interrupt the running clock by filing your complaint; do not rely on the broader 12‑year argument until the High Court says so.
- Civil actions remain viable for four years even when the criminal case is time‑barred.
Disclaimer
This article synthesises statutes, case law, and administrative issuances available as of 25 July 2025. It is not legal advice; consult counsel for case‑specific guidance.