Cyberlibel prescribes in one year from discovery
Summary
This Supreme Court case involves petitioner Causing challenging cyber libel charges filed by Rep. Hernandez over Facebook posts accusing him of stealing Marawi relief funds. The core issue was the prescriptive period for cyber libel. The RTC denied Causing's Motion to Quash, applying either 12-year or 15-year prescription periods. The Supreme Court denied the petition but significantly clarified that cyber libel is not a new crime but merely libel committed through computer systems, prescribing in one year from discovery under Article 90 of the RPC. The Court abandoned the Tolentino doctrine that applied 15-year prescription, holding that the specific provision on libel prescription (one year) prevails over general provisions on afflictive penalties. However, the Court affirmed the RTC's denial because prescription requires factual determination with evidence, which was not established in the motion to quash.
Focus of dispute
Prescriptive period for cyber libel charges and whether the criminal charges against petitioner have prescribed
Legal facts
On February 4, 2019 and April 29, 2019, petitioner Berteni Cataluña Causing posted allegedly libelous content on Facebook accusing Representative Ferdinand Hernandez of stealing P225 million in relief funds for Marawi evacuees. Hernandez filed his Complaint-Affidavit with OCP Quezon City on December 16, 2020. Two separate Informations for cyber libel were filed against Causing on May 10, 2021. Causing filed a Motion to Quash arguing the charges had prescribed under the one-year prescriptive period for libel.
Judgement and reasoning
Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City (OCP)
Found probable cause and filed two separate Informations for cyber libel against Causing under Section 4(c)(4) of RA 10175 in relation to Articles 353 and 355 of the RPC.
Regional Trial Court (RTC) Quezon City Branch 93
Denied the Motion to Quash and Motion for Reconsideration. Applied Section 1 of Act No. 3326 finding cyber libel prescribes in 12 years, or alternatively paragraph 2, Article 90 of RPC making it prescribe in 15 years since penalty is afflictive. Concluded charges were not time-barred as complaint was filed just weeks after discovery.
Supreme Court (SC)
Denied the petition but clarified the law. Held that cyber libel is not a new crime but merely implements RPC provisions on libel when committed through computer systems. Applied paragraph 4, Article 90 of RPC making cyber libel prescribe in one year from discovery by offended party, authorities, or agents. Abandoned Tolentino doctrine. Affirmed RTC's denial of Motion to Quash because prescription requires factual determination with evidence, not apparent on face of Informations.