The Supreme Court has corrected itself in a new ruling, saying that a cyber libel complaint can only be filed within one year from its discovery, a radical departure from the earlier window of 15 years.

In issuing the decision, the High Tribunal’s Third Division revised the longer prescriptive period in the case of Tolentino v. People, based on a petition filed by Berteni Causing, a former journalist-lawyer, questioning the denial of his motion to quash the cyber libel charge against him.

In its 11 October 2023 decision made public recently, the Court said cyber libel is not a new crime, which is why its prescriptive period should be based on the Revised Penal Code, or RPC, and not on Republic Act 3326, which established the prescription period for violations penalized by special acts. Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting penned the ruling.

The Court said the RPC already defines cyber libel, and the cybercrime law or Republic Act 10175 simply recognizes computer use as a mode of publication.

The basis of the prescriptive period for cyber libel should be paragraph 4, Article 90 of the RPC, which clearly states that “the crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year,” the SC said.

The basis is no longer paragraph 2, as it previously ruled. Paragraph 2 states, “Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall be prescribed in 15 years.”

“The Court agrees with Causing and abandons the Tolentino doctrine on the prescriptive period of cyber libel,” the SC said.

It added, “To emphasize, what governs the prescription of cyber libel is paragraph 4, not paragraph 2, of Article 90 of the RPC. Hence, the crime of cyber libel prescribes in one year.”

The Court said paragraph 4 must be given its literal and plain meaning.

Also, the High Tribunal said the cybercrime law contains no language excluding cyber libel from libel.

It added that a special and specific provision of the law prevails over a general provision.

Moreover, it said the history of the prescriptive period for libel showed that the legislature intended to set it apart from other crimes punishable by a correctional penalty.

It noted that libel’s prescriptive period was two years when the RPC was passed. But a new law was later passed, shortening this to one year.

“Given the foregoing, the Court cannot subscribe to the classification of cyber libel as a crime punishable with an afflictive penalty under paragraph 2, Article 90 of the RPC that would increase its prescriptive period to 15 years,” it said.

“Such interpretation disregards the clear intent of the lawmakers to set libel apart from the general class of crimes punishable with afflictive or correctional penalties,” it added.

The SC said that the one-year prescriptive period should be reckoned from the date of discovery (of the infraction) by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents.

“The Court affirms its ruling in Alcantara that prescription is counted from the discovery of the published libelous matter by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents because they could hardly be expected to institute criminal proceedings for libel without prior knowledge of the same,” it said.

The prescriptive period may be reckoned from the time of publication only when it coincides with the date of discovery by the offended party.

But while the SC agreed with Causing on the prescriptive period, it did not grant his petition to annul the Regional Trial Court’s order denying his motion to quash his cyber libel case.

The Supreme Court said the prescription of the cyber libel charge filed against Causing by former South Cotabato Rep. Ferdinand Hernandez was a question of fact that the RTC has to determine.

The cyber libel’s discovery dates were not stated in the charge sheet, and Causing only relied on the publication date of the allegedly libelous Facebook posts to determine the prescriptive period, the court said.

Causing may continue to prove that the crime charged against him had been prescribed by presenting evidence during the trial.