A fine for online libel (1)

When cyber libel was introduced to our legal system, it carried a penalty of imprisonment of up to eight years. This is a great leap from the punishment of up to four years in traditional libel under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code. 

Online libel is committed when a defamatory remark is made against someone using social media. So, to distinguish, if the defamation is done through hard copy newspapers, the punishment is imprisonment for up to four years. But if uploaded to, say, Facebook, then it becomes cyber libel. This, then, should make someone very wary about making reckless comments on social media, as doing so carries a liability and a longer time behind bars. But did you know that liability in cyber libel can also be a fine without any incarceration?

This was thoroughly discussed in the recent case of People of the Philippines v. Jomerito S. Soliman (G.R. No. 256700, promulgated on 25 April 2023). In this case, the respondent was held liable for making a defamatory statement against another person in the former's Facebook account. In holding him criminally liable, the trial court imposed the penalty of a fine of P50,000.

However, the Office of the Solicitor General, the counsel for the Republic, disagreed. It argued that he should also serve time behind bars, as the law prescribes, aside from a mere fine. On appeal, the Court of Appeals sustained the lower court. It opined that the lower correctly interpreted the law by imposing a fine as a penalty without incarceration.

The OSG brought the matter up to the Supreme Court. The Highest Court decreed that "substantively, the petition raises a novel issue, more particularly, whether a court may sentence an accused found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Online Libel, as defined and penalized under Section 4(c) (4) of RA 10175 to the payment of a fine only.

But did you know that liability in cyber libel can also be a fine without any incarceration?

"In this regard, the petitioner argues that Section 6 of RA. 10175 mandates the imposition of a penalty one (1) degree higher than that provided in the RPC for crimes punishable under the Code when committed with the use of information and communication technologies. To the petitioner, this means that the penalty of imprisonment must necessarily be imposed when the felony is committed with the use of such technologies. xxx xxx xxx"

A closer look at the petitioner's arguments clearly shows that its reason for assailing the penalty imposed is focused on the fact that only a fine was imposed. It claims that Section 6 of RA 10175 mandates the imposition of imprisonment. Section 6 provides:

SEC. 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through, and with the use of information and communications technologies, shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act, Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.                

(To be continued)