Related Charges on sharing False News, Legal Writing

Republic Act No. 10951, an act amending R.A. No. 3815 otherwise known as the

Revised Penal Code. Article 154 of the new law imposes stiffer penalty on “unlawful use

of means of publication and unlawful utterances.

Art. 154. Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances. – The penalty of

arresto mayor and a fine ranging from Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) to Two hundred

thousand pesos (P200,000) shall be imposed upon:

1. Any person who by means of printing, lithography, or any other means of publication

shall publish or cause to be published as news any false news which may endanger

the public order, or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State;

2. Any person who by the same means, or by words, utterances, or speeches shall

encourage disobedience to the law or to the constituted authorities or praise, justify,

or extol any act punished by law;

3. Any person who shall maliciously publish or cause to be published any official

resolution or document without proper authority, or before they have been published

officially; or

4. Any person who shall print, publish, or distribute or cause to be printed, published, or

distributed books, pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets which do not bear the real

printer’s name, or which are classified as anonymous.

The law also applies to “any person who by the same means, or word, utterances

or speeches shall encourage disobedience to the law or to the constituted authorities or

praise, justify, or extol any act punished by law.”

The fine will also apply to “any person who shall maliciously publish or cause to

be published any official resolution or document without proper authority or before they

have been published officially.”

 The law also penalizes “any person who shall print, publish, or distribute or cause

to be printed, published, or distributed books, pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets which

do not bear the real printer’s name, or which are classified as anonymous.”

Similar offense is that of libel which was defined under Art. 353 of the Revised

Penal Code.

Article 353. Definition of libel. – A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of

a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance

tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to

blacken the memory of one who is dead.

Early cases of internet libel did not prosper as crimes done online weren’t

punishable then such as in the case of Bonifacio v RTC (G.R. No. 184800, May 5,

2010), however, with the enactment of Republic Act. No. 10175, libel cases now

extends to that of articles published online.

Sec. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. – The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime

punishable under this Act:

xxxxx

(c) Content-related Offenses:

xxxxx

(4) Libel. – The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised

Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar

means which may be devised in the future.

As R.A. No. 10951 was just pubished in the Official Gazette last August 29,

2017, cases regarding its violation is yet to be filed so, we’ll be tackling cases under

liber. In the case of Daez v. CA (191 SCRA 61, 67, October 31, 1990), the elements of

libel are: (a) imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another; (b) publication of

the imputation; (c) identity of the person defamed; and, (d) existence of malice. In libel
cases, the question is not what the writer of an alleged libel means, but what the words

used by him means.

So, how are spreading false news related to that of online libel? In the case of

Lacsa v. Intermediate Appellate Court (161 SCRA 427, May 23, 1988), the court ruled

that “Words calculated to induce suspicion are sometimes more effective to destroy

reputation than false charges directly made. Ironical and metaphorical language is a

favored vehicle for slander. A charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce

the hearers to suppose and understand that the person or persons against whom they

were uttered were guilty of certain offenses, or are sufficient to impeach their honesty,

virtue, or reputation, or to hold the person or persons up to public ridicule…”

The ruling in the 2010 Yuchengco Internet libel suit set a fitting jurisprudence to

all these. Online libel cases should be tried in the place where the subject article or post

was first published or read by the complainant. It overturned the 2007 resolution from

then Secretary of Justice Raul Gonzales that “the crime of internet libel was non-

existent.”

In the case of Disini v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335, February 11,

2014), sec. 4(c)(4) of R.A. No. 10175 was declared constitutional however, online libel

covers only the original author, not recipients thereof who merely react thereto without

adding libelous statements. Those who “liked,” “shared,” “retweeted,” “favorited,” or

reblogged a post will not be criminally liable unless, presuming, the person added a

comment that may be deemed to be libelous by a complainant.

There is publication if the material is communicated to a third person. It is not

required that the person defamed has read or heard about the libelous remark. What is
material is that a third person has read or heard the libelous statement, for “a man’s

reputation is the estimate in which others hold him in, not the good opinion which he has

of himself.” (Alonzo v. CA, 241 SCRA 51, February 01, 1995)

Sources:

1. http://www.chanrobles.com/revisedpenalcodeofthephilippinesbook2.htm#.WduO

m2iCzIU

2. http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/

3. http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/downloads/2017/08aug/20170829-RA-10951-

RRD.pdf

4. https://pcoo.gov.ph/news_releases/duterte-signs-amendments-revised-penal-

code/

5. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/927102/president-rodrigo-duterte-revised-penal-code-

fake-news

6. Bonifacio, et al. v. RTC, G.R. No. 184800, May 05, 2010

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/may2010/184800.htm

7. Daez v. CA, 191 SCRA 61, 67, October 31, 1990

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/oct1990/gr_l_47971_1990.html

8. Lacsa v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 161 SCRA 427, May 23, 1988

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/may1988/gr_74907_1988.html

9. Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. no. 203335, February 11, 2014

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_203335_2014.html
10. Alonzo v. CA, 241 SCRA 51, February 01, 1995

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/feb1995/gr_110088_1995.html