A woman was acquitted by the Supreme Court (SC) of cyber libel over alleged defamatory remarks she posted on Facebook accusing the former mayor of Catanauan, Quezon, of demanding a bribe before issuing a permit, ruling that such an allegation does not necessarily establish actual malice.

The SC Second Division, in a 16-page decision authored by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez and dated 13 January 2026, reversed the cyber libel conviction of Jade Karla Tan after finding that the prosecution failed to prove that she acted with malice or reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of her imputations against former Catanauan Mayor Atty. Ramon A. Orfanel, whom she accused of receiving “padulas.”

In 2016, Jade published a post on her Facebook account accusing a local government official of being corrupt for allegedly accepting “padulas” in exchange for the issuance of building, business and other permits from the Office of the Mayor.

Although she did not name the official, the circumstances appeared to point to Orfanel, who was then serving as mayor of the town.

Orfanel said the insinuations and imputations were entirely false and intended to besmirch and destroy his reputation.

Two employees of the local government of Catanauan testified that they encountered Jade’s social media posts and believed the person being referred to was Orfanel because he held the highest position in the municipality.

Orfanel also testified that he served as mayor of Catanauan from 2007 to 2016.

He said that sometime in 2015, he was approached by Jade’s cousin and mother, along with a representative of a fast-food chain, who told him they intended to open a branch in the municipality.

He was informed that construction would commence sometime in September 2015.

Orfanel said he was excited about the development and told them “to coordinate with his office regarding any development for the construction.” However, months passed and no Jollibee branch was opened in Catanauan.

In January 2016, Orfanel said he learned of rumors that he was the reason the fast-food branch was not built.

He found out from one of his staff members that Jade had posted the allegedly defamatory remarks on Facebook. He and his wife then viewed the posts and took screenshots.

Orfanel alleged that he was the person referred to in the post because he was the only mayor in Catanauan and the color orange mentioned in the post was the color he had used in his campaigns since entering local politics.

Orfanel then said he received a call from Jade’s aunt, who apologized for what the accused had done and asked for a personal meeting with him.

Orfanel declined the request and filed a libel complaint.

During the pendency of the complaint, his brother convinced him to talk to Jade.

When they met, Orfanel said Jade admitted to posting the remarks and asked for forgiveness.

During the election period, he and his wife initially decided not to pursue the case but later changed their minds following an incident involving Jade’s brother.

He confirmed that Jade posted an apology on Facebook and also put up an apology on a large billboard in front of the lot where the fast-food branch was supposed to be constructed.

For her part, Jade testified that during the meeting with Orfanel, she did not admit to any wrongdoing.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Jade of cyber libel, a ruling that was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeals (CA).

The CA ruled that all elements of cyber libel had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellate court held that the imputation that Orfanel was corrupt and had asked for “padulas” or grease money exposed him to public ridicule, humiliation and contempt.

The SC, in reversing her conviction, emphasized that malice on the part of the accused was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court explained that cyber libel, as defined under Republic Act No. 10175, is not a new crime because it has the same elements as libel under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, with the use of a computer system recognized as a means of publication.

The high court underscored that the elements of cyber libel are the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another person, publication of the charge, identity of the person defamed, and existence of malice.

It found that the fourth element was lacking in the case.

The SC also ruled that criminal prosecutions for libel must ensure that the right to free expression and the press are not violated.

The Court cited Daquer v. People, where it acknowledged that the fundamental right to freedom of expression tempers the law on libel and that in criminal libel cases where the complainant is a public officer, the burden of proving actual malice rests on the complainant.

The SC reiterated that actual malice is present when statements are made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

“The prosecution did not show that actual malice attended petitioner's declarations. It was not established whether the defamatory statements were made with knowledge that these were false or with reckless disregard as to their falsity,” the Court said.

The Court stressed that, considering the constitutional presumption of innocence, acquittal ensues.