Online libel rulings

Dear Atty. Angela,

I was charged for online libel for a post I made in Facebook against a local politician whom everyone knows is corrupt. I stated how he manipulates the bidding of awards for projects and accepts substantial kickbacks from it. Aside from this, I also mentioned his undue favors for businessmen who do not get sanctioned despite several violations. The RTC found me guilty of online libel and sentenced to pay a fine of P50,000. The local politician filed an appeal questioning the imposition of mere fine, instead of imprisonment. Is it not correct that a fine is already a sufficient penalty?

Paco

  

Dear Paco,

The Supreme Court held that AC 08-2008, which sets a rule of preference for imposing fines instead of imprisonment in libel cases, “does not supplant the legislative intent behind the imposition of a higher degree of penalty in online libel. In fact, with due deference to prevailing statutes, it is careful to emphasize that it does not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty.”

The Court further ruled that in the imposition of penalty for libel/online libel, courts should bear in mind the principles laid down in AC 08-2008, among which, that courts take into consideration “the peculiar circumstances of each case, determine whether the imposition of a fine alone would best serve the interests of justice or whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would depreciate the seriousness of the offense, work violence on the social order, or otherwise be contrary to the imperatives of justice.”

In the case of People v. Soliman, G.R. 256700 (25 April 202), it ruled that the Revised Penal Code recognizes the penalty of fine may be imposed as a single or alternative penalty for libel, as evident in the RPC’s plain use of the disjunctive word “or” between the term of imprisonment and fine, such word signaling disassociation or independence between the two words, to wit:

Under the RPC, as amended by RA 10951, the penalty for traditional libel is “prision correcional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from P40,000 to P1,200,000, or both.”

Thus, in the case of Soliman, the Court found that the circumstances surrounding the defamatory Facebook post are akin to one of the circumstances under AC 08-2008, specifically that Soliman was animated by anger. The courts have sole discretion in the determination whether imprisonment or fine shall best serve the interest of justice.

Atty. Angela Antonio