The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that cyber libel prescribes one year from the time it is discovered, affirming its earlier interpretation and rejecting arguments seeking a longer prescriptive period.

In a Resolution written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, the SC En Banc denied the separate motions for reconsideration filed by Berteni Cataluña Causing and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), effectively upholding its earlier ruling on the matter.

The case stemmed from a cyber libel complaint filed in December 2020 by Cotabato 2nd District Representative Ferdinand Hernandez against Causing. 

The complaint was based on Facebook posts alleging that Hernandez pocketed over P200 million worth of relief goods intended for Marawi victims. 

Hernandez said he discovered the posts on 4 February and 29 April 2019.

Criminal Informations were later filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in May 2021. Causing moved to quash the charges, arguing that the case had already prescribed under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) since more than one year had passed from the posting of the alleged defamatory content.

The RTC denied the motion, ruling that cyber libel under Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act prescribes in 12 years. 

Causing elevated the matter to the SC, which earlier clarified that cyber libel follows the one-year prescriptive period for traditional libel under the RPC, counted from discovery of the offense.

In their motions for reconsideration, both Causing and the OSG challenged the ruling. The OSG argued that cyber libel should instead be subject to a 15-year prescriptive period under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, citing prior jurisprudence. 

Causing, meanwhile, insisted that prescription should run from the date of publication, not discovery, warning that the discovery rule could allow complaints to be filed years after a post is made.

The SC rejected both positions.

It ruled that there is no law exempting cyber libel from the one-year prescriptive period for libel under the RPC. The Court emphasized that Congress has consistently treated libel as a crime with a shorter prescriptive period, regardless of penalty increases under special laws.

The Court further clarified that cyber libel is not a distinct crime but merely libel committed through a computer system. 

As such, the higher penalty under the Cybercrime Prevention Act does not automatically extend its prescriptive period.

On the issue of when prescription begins, the SC held that it starts upon discovery of the offense by the offended party or authorities, not at the time of publication. 

It rejected the argument that online publication should automatically be considered constructive notice to the offended party, noting that access to social media posts may depend on privacy settings, connectivity, and network reach.

The SC also ruled that its earlier ruling in Tolentino v. People, which mentioned a 15-year prescriptive period, is not binding precedent, as it was issued through an unsigned resolution and applies only to the parties involved.

Several justices issued separate opinions. Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen said the one-year prescriptive period should apply only to libel cases involving private individuals and reiterated calls to decriminalize libel against public figures, citing implications on free expression.

Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa stressed that libel has historically carried a prescriptive period of only one or two years, never extending to a decade or more.

Meanwhile, Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr., joined by several other justices, dissented in part, arguing that cyber libel and traditional libel are separate offenses under different legal frameworks, and thus should not share the same prescriptive period.

Despite the differing views within the Court, the ruling stands: cyber libel cases must be filed within one year from discovery of the alleged defamatory content.