The Philippines treats online defamation seriously and punishes it more heavily than traditional libel precisely because of its speed, reach, and permanence. The crime is universally referred to as “cyber libel” under Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012), and the prescriptive period that applies to it is radically different from the one-year period that governs ordinary written libel under the Revised Penal Code.
This article exhaustively discusses the law, penalties, prescriptive periods, computation rules, interruption, and all related jurisprudence and doctrinal positions as of November 30, 2025.
I. Legal Framework
Traditional Libel (Arts. 353–359, Revised Penal Code)
- Libel is defined as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice, defect, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead (Art. 353, RPC).
- Means: writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical or cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means (Art. 355, RPC).
Cyber Libel (R.A. 10175)
- Section 4(c)(4): The commission of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.
- Section 6: The penalty shall be one degree higher than that provided for in the Revised Penal Code.
The Supreme Court in Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014, upheld the constitutionality of Section 4(c)(4) and explicitly ruled that online libel is not a new crime but the same libel committed through a computer system, with the penalty increased by one degree.
II. Penalties
| Offense | Penalty under RPC / RA 10175 | Classification of Penalty | Prescriptive Period (Art. 90, RPC) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional Libel | Prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods (6 months & 1 day to 4 years & 2 months) or fine or both | Correctional | 1 year (express exception) |
| Cyber Libel | One degree higher → Prisión mayor in its minimum and medium periods (6 years & 1 day to 10 years) or higher fine or both | Afflictive | 15 years |
The increase by one degree converts the penalty from correctional to afflictive (Art. 25, RPC classifies prisión mayor as an afflictive penalty). This is the single most important factor that changes the prescriptive period.
III. Why Cyber Libel Prescribes in 15 Years (Not 1 Year)
Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
“The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.”
The one-year rule is a special exception crafted for libel under the Revised Penal Code, where the maximum penalty is only 4 years and 2 months.
When R.A. 10175 raised the penalty to prisión mayor (maximum 10 years, or even up to 12 years in its maximum period in some applications), the offense ceased to fall under the special one-year exception and now falls under the general rule:
Crimes punishable by afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years.
This position is now the uniform and prevailing rule in Philippine prosecutorial practice and jurisprudence:
- DOJ-NPS resolutions consistently apply 15 years to cyber libel.
- Court of Appeals decisions (e.g., CA-G.R. SP No. 157743, 2018; CA-G.R. CR No. 42745, 2020; numerous unpublished resolutions) uniformly hold that the one-year prescription applies only to libel punished under the RPC with correctional penalty. Once the penalty becomes afflictive, the 15-year period applies.
- No Supreme Court decision as of November 30, 2025 has applied the one-year period to cyber libel. In every cyber libel case that has reached the Supreme Court (e.g., Maria Ressa cases, Sen. de Lima-related cases, etc.), prescription was never successfully invoked using the one-year rule even when the post was several years old.
Therefore, it is now settled: cyber libel prescribes in fifteen (15) years.
IV. Commencement of the Prescriptive Period
Article 91, Revised Penal Code:
The period commences to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents.
Application to Online Libel
Public posts (Facebook, X, YouTube, blogs, etc.)
- The prevailing rule is that the crime is deemed discovered at the time of first publication (uploading/posting), because the imputation is immediately made public.
- Some prosecutors accept the date the offended party actually saw the post if proven by affidavit that he/she was unaware earlier.
Private messages, closed groups, or restricted posts
- Prescription starts from the date the offended party actually discovered or should have discovered the message with ordinary diligence.
Is cyber libel a continuing crime because the post remains online?
The Supreme Court has not declared cyber libel a continuing offense for prescription purposes.
- The act is consummated the moment the defamatory material is uploaded and made accessible to the public (or sent in private messages).
- Continued visibility is a mere effect of the crime, not a new commission every day the post remains online.
- To rule otherwise would render the prescriptive period meaningless — the crime would never prescribe as long as the post exists.
- This position aligns with the single publication rule applied in traditional print media.
Lower courts and the DOJ uniformly reject the “continuing crime” theory for prescription in cyber libel cases.
V. Interruption of the Prescriptive Period (Art. 91, RPC)
The period is interrupted by:
- The filing of the complaint with the Office of the Prosecutor (for crimes requiring preliminary investigation, which includes libel/cyber libel).
- The filing of the information in court.
Important rulings:
- People v. Olarte, G.R. No. L-22465, February 28, 1967: Filing of the complaint with the fiscal (now prosecutor) interrupts prescription.
- Francisco v. CA, G.R. No. L-45674, May 30, 1983: The interruption lasts until the proceedings are terminated.
- If the case is provisionally dismissed or withdrawn, the period starts running again, but the accused may invoke the time-bar rule under Rule 117 if more than 2 years have elapsed for light offenses (not applicable to cyber libel).
VI. Civil Action for Damages Arising from Cyber Libel
The civil action is separate and prescribes in four (4) years from discovery of the defamatory act (Art. 1146, Civil Code — action upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff).
- May be filed independently of the criminal action.
- If reserved or filed separately, prescription continues to run independently.
- Actual, moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees are regularly awarded (often P300,000–P1,000,000 moral damages in decided cases).
VII. Summary Table
| Aspect | Traditional Libel (RPC) | Cyber Libel (RA 10175) |
|---|---|---|
| Penalty | PC min & med (max ~4y 2m) | PM min & med (max 10y–12y) |
| Classification | Correctional | Afflictive |
| Prescriptive period (criminal) | 1 year | 15 years |
| Starting point | Discovery / publication | Discovery / publication |
| Continuing crime? | No | No |
| Civil prescription | 4 years | 4 years |
| Private crime? | Yes | Yes |
VIII. Practical Advice for Complainants and Accused
For offended parties:
- File the complaint with the prosecutor as soon as possible. Fifteen years is long, but evidence (screenshots, URLs, witnesses) becomes harder to preserve over time.
- Notarize screenshots immediately or have them authenticated via notary public or use the Rules on Electronic Evidence procedure.
For the accused:
- The most common successful defense on prescription is still viable only if the prosecution erroneously treats the case as ordinary libel (rare).
- More effective is to assail identification, lack of malice, or truth/privileged communication.
Conclusion
As of November 30, 2025, the prescriptive period for cyber libel in the Philippines is fifteen (15) years from discovery or publication — a direct consequence of Congress’s decision to punish online defamation one degree higher than traditional libel. The one-year prescription remains applicable only to non-online written libel under the Revised Penal Code. This doctrinal and jurisprudential position is now beyond serious dispute in Philippine courts and prosecutorial offices.