Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in imposing penalty of fine only instead of imprisonment for Online Libel under RA 10175
Summary
This Supreme Court case clarifies the proper penalty computation for Online Libel under RA 10175 and affirms that fine may be imposed as alternative to imprisonment. Soliman was convicted of Online Libel for Facebook posts defaming a government official, with RTC imposing P50,000 fine only. When the People challenged this via certiorari claiming imprisonment was mandatory, the Court ruled that both traditional and online libel allow fine as alternative penalty. The Court computed the proper fine range for online libel (P40,000-P1,500,000) using Article 75 of the RPC and confirmed Administrative Circular 08-2008's continued applicability. The decision establishes important precedents on penalty computation for cybercrimes and the limits of prosecutorial appeals under double jeopardy principles.
Focus of dispute
Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in imposing penalty of fine only instead of imprisonment for Online Libel under RA 10175
Legal facts
On January 23, 2018, Jomerito S. Soliman posted defamatory content on his Facebook account against Waldo R. Carpio, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Agriculture. The post accused Carpio of taking favors, unduly delaying release of Soliman's Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import clearance, and engaging in backdoor activities. Soliman was charged with Online Libel under Section 4(c)(4) of RA 10175. The RTC convicted him and imposed a fine of P50,000.00 only, invoking AC 08-2008. Soliman paid the fine and did not appeal. The People filed a certiorari petition claiming the penalty should be one degree higher than RPC provisions, requiring imprisonment.
Judgement and reasoning
{"Court of Appeals (CA)": "Denied the People's certiorari petition. Found no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. Ruled that any error in penalty imposition was error of judgment, not jurisdiction. Held that libel laws do not remove courts' discretion to impose fine or imprisonment. Found that the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 10175 explicitly provide fine as alternative penalty. Concluded that the certiorari petition violated Soliman's right against double jeopardy since he did not appeal and judgment was final.", "Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 90 Quezon City": "Found Soliman guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Online Libel under Section 4(c)(4) of RA 10175. Imposed fine of P50,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment. Applied AC 08-2008 allowing fine only in libel cases, considering Soliman's anger and perception of provocation, his immediate deletion of the post, and multiple apologies to Carpio. Exercised sound discretion in determining fine alone would best serve interests of justice.", "Supreme Court (SC)": "Affirmed the CA decision and denied the petition. Ruled that RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion. Clarified that both RPC and RA 10175 prescribe imprisonment 'or a fine' for libel and online libel respectively, maintaining their character as alternative penalties. Computed proper fine range for online libel as P40,000.00 to P1,500,000.00 based on Article 75 of RPC. Held that AC 08-2008 remains applicable to online libel cases. Found no grave abuse of discretion since P50,000.00 fine was within prescribed range and circumstances justified fine-only penalty."}