Cybercrime Offenses (Sec. 4, R.A. No.

10175)

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. (Sec. 4 [c.4], R.A. No.10175)

ARTICLE 353 – DEFINITION OF LIBEL

ARTICLE 354 – REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLICITY

LIBEL – is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, whether 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.

ELEMENTS:

1. There must be an imputation or allegation of a crime, or a vice of defect, whether real or

imaginary, or any act or omission, condition, status or circumstance which tend to dishonor
or discredit a natural or juridical person.

2. That there must be a publication of the said defamatory statement or article

3. The identity of the person defamed must be established or identified

4. The existence of malice

SECOND ELEMENT:

Publication – satisfied the moment that a 3rd person has heard or read the libelous statement, even if the person
pertained has not heard or read it.

➢ So the basis is that a 3rd person has heard or read the libelous statement.

Q: What if A, in national television said, “ikaw B, isa kang estafadora”. A accused B of the crime of estafa. Is the crime
committed libel or oral defamation (slander)?

A: The crime committed is LIBEL. According to the Supreme Court, Television is within the phrase any similar
means.

Q: The accused called a ranking official magnanakaw and mandarambong over the radio. Crime committed?

A: The crime committed is libel

Q: What if A, in the same incident, using a microphone,

using an amplifier sound system, called B “isa kang

DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)

estafadora”. Is the crime committed libel or is it oral defamation?

A: The crime committed is Oral Defamation or Slander. The use of the microphone or the amplifier is not
within the means provided for Art. 355.
THIRD ELEMENT:
Identity of the person- must be identified, not necessary

that the person must be named or described.

➢ It suffices that any reader or a person who heard would know that he is the person being referred to.

➢ The moment a 3rd party has recognized or has known that he is the one being referred to in the defamatory
statement, the identity of the offended party is already present.

FOURTH ELEMENT in relation to Art. 354 – Requirement for Publicity:

 ➢  As a rule, every defamatory statement is presumed to be MALICIOUS, even if it is true.

 ➢  In defamatory statements, if the offender cannot state any good intention or justifiable motive for stating
defamatory statements, the law presumes malice.

MALICE IN LAW – Prosecution need not prove malice. It is the defense who must prove that in stating the
defamatory statements, there was no malice on the part of the offender because the law presumes malice in
law.

MALICE IN FACT – There are certain statements wherein the law does not presume malice. In this kind of
malice, it must be proven by the prosecution. It is available in privilege communication.

 It is the burden of the prosecution to prove the existence of malice on the part of the offender when he said the
defamatory mark or statement. Otherwise, if not proven. There will be an acquittal.

The Internet has disrupted every aspect of our lives including how we gather
information, communicate with friends and family, and conduct our businesses. But
the good always comes with the bad. While the Internet has revolutionized every
sphere of human activity, it also facilitated the criminal activities of nefarious
individuals.

Recognizing this dual aspect of this paradigm shifting activity, Congress enacted
Republic Act 10175, also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. This
new law defined and punished offenses, which may be grouped as follows: offenses
against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data systems;
computer-related offenses, such as computer forgery, fraud and identity theft, and
content-related offenses, such as cybersex, child pornography and, most
significantly, cyber libel.

The constitutionality of the provision on cyber libel was subsequently assailed in

Disini v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. 203335, 11 February 2014). The Supreme Court
(SC), however, ruled that libel is not a constitutionally protected speech. It follows,
therefore, the cyber libel is not unconstitutional as well.
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 does not really define cyber libel. It
penalizes libel, as defined under the Revised Penal Code, but imposes a higher
penalty because of the use of information and communication technologies. In
Disini, the SC explained this qualifying circumstance arises from the fact that in
“using the technology in question, the offender often evades identification and is
able to reach far more victims or cause greater harm.”

The elements of libel are the allegation of a discreditable act or condition

concerning another; publication of the charge; identity of the person defamed, and
existence of malice.

As to the first requirement, the allegation must be a 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. For cyber libel in
particular, the publication requirement is satisfied when the allegation is made
publicly through the use of information and communication technologies.

For the third requisite, it is not necessary that the person defamed is named. If the
totality of the publication makes it possible to determine who the defamed person
is, then this element is also satisfied.

Finally, malice exists when the offender makes the defamatory statement with the
knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

When committed through information and communication technologies, libel

becomes cyber libel, which carries with it a higher penalty by one degree under
Section 6 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act. Specifically, libel under the Revised
Penal Code is punished with prision correccional in its minimum period, which is
from six months and one day to two years and four months and medium period,
which is from two years, four months and one day to four years and two months; or
a fine ranging from P200 to P6,000 or both.

However, if it is cyber libel, the penalty is increased by one degree. Thus, the
penalty is prision mayor in its minimum period, which is from six years and one day
to eight years and medium period, which is from eight years and one day to 10
years.
In prosecuting the crime of libel or cyber libel, venue is jurisdictional. For ordinary
libel, the venue, where the complainant is a private individual, is limited to only
either of two places, namely: where the complainant actually resides at the time of
the commission of the offense or where the alleged defamatory article was printed
and first published.

However, for cyber libel, the place where the defamatory article was printed and
first published is impossible to ascertain. It also cannot be where the defamatory
online article was first accessed. In Bonifacio v. RTC Makati City, the SC said if it
allows cyber libel to be filed where the article is first accessed, the author of the
defamatory article may be sued anywhere in the Philippines. The private
complainant can just allege that he accessed the defamatory online article in a far-
flung place. For instance, a blogger in Manila who posts a defamatory article may
then be sued in Ilocos Sur, where the offended party allegedly first accessed the
article. To prevent this chaotic situation, the High Court effectively limited the
venue to the place where the complainant actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense.

The Internet is a potent medium. If used for good, it can lead to boundless benefits
to society. But if utilized for nefarious ends, the prejudice to the community is
unimaginable. As Uncle Ben in Spider-Man said, “With great power comes great
responsibility.” The Internet has given us great power. May we use it responsibly
for the good of humanity.

A Closer Look at the Law on Cyber

Libel and Liability
To determine whether a person posting, sharing, commenting, or liking a libelous post on
social media, is liable for the crime of cyber libel, we have to explore the principal acts
amounting to the crime of cyber libel itself, as defined under the Cybercrime Prevention Act
of 2012.

Section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which punishes the crime of
cyber libel, makes reference to Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code:

“(4) Libel. – The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Art. 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.”
and punishes the same set of acts defined under the Revised Penal Code, but outlines its
commission, through “a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised
in the future”.

Proceeding from the definition of libel under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, cyber
libel is defined as 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, and committed through a computer system or any other similar means
which may be devised in the future.

Elements of Cyber Libel

The following are the elements of cyber libel, based on Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175, in
relation to Articles 353 and 355 of the Revised Penal Code:

a. There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any

act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance.

b. The imputation must be made publicly, which requires that at least one other person must
have seen the libelous post, in addition to the author and the person defamed or alluded to
in the post.

c. The imputation must be malicious, which means that the author of the libelous post made
such post with knowledge that it was false, or with reckless disregard as to the truth or
falsity thereof. (Yunchengco vs. The Manila Chronicle Publishing Corporation, G.R. No.
184315, 25 November 2009.)

d. The imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead,
which requires that the post must identify the person defamed, or at the very least, the
person defamed is identifiable by a third person.

e. The imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person
defamed. (Reyes, Luis B., Revised Penal Code, Fifteenth Edition, 2001, page 932.)

f. The imputation was done through the use of a computer system or any other similar
means which may be devised in the future. (Sec. 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175)

Person Liable for Cyber Libel

It must be noted that the Revised Penal Code punishes the person who shall publish,
exhibit or cause the publication or exhibition of a libelous post, or the editor or business
manager of a book, pamphlet, newspaper, magazine or serial publication containing the
libelous material:
“Art. 360. Persons responsible. — 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.

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.

Therefore, in relation to the crime of cyber libel, you have two (2) personalities that are
clearly subjected to liability for the crime:

1. The author of the libelous post, which includes the person who shall publish,
exhibit or cause the publication of the libelous post. The person who created the
libelous post would fall under this category.
2. The editor or business manager, in case the libelous post is contained in a book,
pamphlet, newspaper, magazine or serial publication.

Penalty for Cyber Libel

Traditional libel is punished under the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act
No. 10951, as follows:

“Art. 355. Libel by means of writings or similar means. – A libel committed by means of

writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition,
cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prisión correccional
in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000)
to One million two hundred thousand pesos (₱1,200,000), or both, in addition to the civil
action which may be brought by the offended party.”

The penalty under Prision Correccional in its minimum period involve imprisonment from 6
months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months. On the other hand, Prision Correccional in its
medium period involve imprisonment from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 years. Thus,
using the computation of periods for penalties under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty
imposed for traditional libel involves imprisonment from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and
2 months.

On the other hand, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 punishes the crime of cyber
libel as follows:

“Section 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and
special laws, if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications
technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the
penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.”
Since the crime of traditional libel is punished under the Revised Penal Code, and under the
cyber crime prevention act, if the crime is cyber libel, “the penalty to be imposed shall be
one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended”, the
penalty imposed would be Prision Correccional in its maximum period to Prision Mayor in its
minimum period.

Prision Correccional in its maximum period involve imprisonment from 4 years, 2 months
and 1 day to 6 years. On the other hand, Prision Mayor in its minimum period involve
imprisonment 6 years and 1 day to 8 years.

Thus, the penalty for cyber libel, based on the penalty under the Revised Penal Code for
traditional libel, and computed under Section 6 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012,
which increased the penalty by one (1) degree higher, is 2 year, 4 months and 1 day to 8
years.

In response to developments in technology and the ever-growing use of multiple forms of

social media in the Philippines, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 10175, also known as
the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

Law Defining Cyber Libel

R.A. 10175 deals with many crimes, including byber libel. Sec. 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175 states:

“(4) Libel. – The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Art. 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.”

On the other hand, Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, referred to in R.A. 10175,
provides:

“Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. — A libel committed by means of

writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition,
cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prision correccional
in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in
addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party.”

Culled from these provisions are the following elements of Cyberlibel, as punished under
Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175 in relation to Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code:

a. There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any

act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance.

b. The imputation must be made publicly.

c. The imputation must be malicious.

d. The imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead.

e. The imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person
defamed. (Reyes, Luis B., Revised Penal Code, Fifteenth Edition, 2001, page 932.)

f. The imputation was done through the use of a computer system or any other similar
means. (Sec. 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175)

Malice is present when it is shown that the author of the libelous remarks made such
remarks with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity
thereof. (Yuchengco vs. The Manila Chronicle Publishing Corporation, G.R. No.
184315, 25 November 2009)

Also, even if the name of the person is not indicated in the post, the owner of the post is still
liable so long as the other persons who read the libelous post can identify the person
alluded to. Thus, in the case of Philippine Journalists’ vs Thoenen (G.R. No. 143372, 13
December 2005), the Supreme Court ruled that the element of identifiability is met if it is
shown that at least a third person or a stranger was able to identify him as the object of the
defamatory statement.

On the matter of freedom of speech, the Supreme Court held that the public interest
involved in freedom of speech and the individual interest in the maintenance of private
honor and reputation need to be accommodated one to the other. In the balancing of these
interests, the law prohibits the reckless disregard of private reputation by publishing or
circulating defamatory statements without any bona fide effort to ascertain the truth thereof.
(Erwin Tulfo vs. People of the Philippines and Atty. Carlos T. So, G.R. No. 161032, 16
September 2008.)

Freedom of Speech abnd Punishment

for Cyber Libel
A violation of R.A. 10175, particularly Sec. 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175 (Cyberlibel) can result, not
only in the filing of a criminal complaint, but also a civil complaint for damages.

Article 2219, paragraph (7) of the Civil Code allows the recovery of moral damages in case
of libel, slander or any other form of defamation. This provision of law establishes the right
of an offended party in a case for oral defamation to recover from the guilty party damages
for injury to his feelings and reputation. The offended party is likewise allowed to recover
punitive or exemplary damages. (Occena vs. Icamina, G.R. No. 82146, 22 January 1990)

The posting caused embarrassment. She should have confronted Ms. Platon
personally or through a personal message of the issue of disturbing her during
a weekend. The words seriously attacked Ms. Platon’s character. It was
dishonorable to her as a civil servant who is actually thinking of her duties as
executive assistant

Ms. Lozada failed to communicate her sentiments personally to Ms. Platon. She
instead intended to attack the character and reputation of Ms. Platon publicly.