Art.

360 of the Revised Penal Code provides that “Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the
publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the
same”. With the emphasized phrase, it is a simple foresight. Because when said law was written and
took into effect the lawmakers were not sure on what future means of writing would be available. Thus,
it shall qualify articles or videos posted on the internet or social media platforms such as but not limited
to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Youtube.

As a rule in Criminal Law any person who shall publish or cause the publication of any defamatory
statement shall be responsible for libel. More so as provided by Art. 360 of the Revised Penal Code, the
author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper
magazine or serial publication shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same
extent as if he were the author thereof. In the case of Tulfo vs People G.R. No. 161032 September 16,
2008:

As Tulfo cannot simply say that he is not liable because he did not fulfill his responsibility
as a journalist, the other petitioners cannot simply say that they are not liable because
they did not fulfill their responsibilities as editors and publishers. An editor or manager
of a newspaper, who has active charge and control of its management, conduct, and
policy, generally is held to be equally liable with the owner for the publication therein of
a libelous article. On the theory that it is the duty of the editor or manager to know and
control the contents of the paper, it is held that said person cannot evade responsibility
by abandoning the duties to employees, so that it is immaterial whether or not the
editor or manager knew the contents of the publication.

In addition in the case of Fermin v People G.R. No. 157643 March 28, 2008 citing the case of
U.S. v. Ocampo stated that:

According to the legal doctrines and jurisprudence of the United States, the printer of a
publication containing libelous matter is liable for the same by reason of his direct
connection therewith and his cognizance of the contents thereof. With regard to a
publication in which a libel is printed, not only is the publisher but also all other persons
who in any way participate in or have any connection with its publication are liable as
publishers.

Since Facebook can see whatever is posted in their platform and greatly, they have the sole direct
control and supervision over what posts should be deleted in their platform. In which they have a similar
function with an editor of a newspaper or magazine that checks and filters what articles would be
published in their respective medium, thus, they it can be held that they shall be responsible for the
defamation posted through their platform to the same extend as if they were the author thereof. In the
case of Straton Oakmont vs Prodigy May 24, 1995 Supreme Court, Nassau County, New York, Trial IAS
Part 34 provided:

PRODIGY commenced operations in 1990. Plaintiffs base their claim that PRODIGY is a
publisher in large measure on PRODIGY's stated policy, starting in 1990, that it was a
family-oriented computer network. In various national newspaper articles written by
Geoffrey Moore, PRODIGY's Director of Market Programs and Communications,
PRODIGY held itself out as an online service that exercised editorial control over the
content of messages posted on its computer bulletin boards, thereby expressly
differentiating itself from its competition and expressly likening itself to a newspaper.

The herein petitioner’s reputation was compromised not only because of the defamatory statements
made by “Bikoy”, but also for the failure of Facebook and Google Philippines to take down said
defamatory posts despite the multiple requests by the petitioner. More so, it must be taken into mind
that whatever is posted on the internet may be downloaded by any person, thus making it near
impossible to be completely removed. With that being in consideration, other than the blatant act by
“Bikoy” the failure of Facebook and Youtube to comply with the petitioner’s request will now tarnish her
reputation forever. In the instance that these set of terms and condition would be used as a way to
circumvent our laws, it would cause great risk and injustice not only for the petitioner but also for the
millions of Filipino who’s reputation is at risk of being defamed.