IT41-SIP (Social and Professional Issues)

PAMBAYANG DALUBHASAAN NG MARILAO

College of Computer Studies

I. INTRODUCTION
This module covers a discussion about
defamation and its elements. Additional
information on libelous statements was
provided to facilitate the identification of
Module 14 posts from social media that can be
considered offenses under defamation or
cyber libel.

DEFAMATION OBJECTIVES
1. Identify what constitutes defamation by
identifying its elements
2. Investigate sample cases to justify the
application of the law
3. Examine how to interpret libelous
statements
4. Discover the charges for cyber libel

III. LESSON PROPER

Defamation - oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their
reputation.

Elements of Defamation as defined in Libel

 A person may only be convicted of an offense if all the elements of that offense are present. If
one is absent, then the accused must be acquitted. For a person to be convicted of defamation,
the following elements should be present.
1. There must be an imputation of a crime, or a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any
act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance.
2. The imputation must be made publicly.
3. It must be malicious.
4. The imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person or one who is dead.
Here the identity of the offended party must be clearly identified.
5. The imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of the
person defamed.
6. It must be in writing (for cyber libel; writing must be done through a computer system
or any other similar means which may be devised in the future).
 IT41-SIP (Social and Professional Issues)
PAMBAYANG DALUBHASAAN NG MARILAO
College of Computer Studies
Suppose you post this in your status message. Will you be guilty of cyber libel? Assume you are a
school mate of Myrna Garcia.
Mga friends si Myrna Garcia, ung magandang Eng. Student, eh, tesbun!!! Eh, di ba wala
naman BF yun. Akala mo mahinhin, malandi pala!!!

Like Comment Share 2 seconds ago.

Let’s examine if all the elements of cyber libel are present.

1. First. Is there an imputation of a crime, or a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any
act, omission, condition, status, or circumstances?

Stated, this element refers to the allegation of a discreditable act or condition

concerning another. In the above message, there is an imputation of a condition,
status, or circumstances. Hence, element number 1 is present.

2. Is the imputation made public?

The answer is yes because his Facebook friends can read the status.
Publication does not mean that the defamatory statement should be published in the
newspaper of general circulation, televised in national television, neither by refereed
ISI journal, etc.
There is publication when the defamatory matter’s communication is made
to some third person or persons (People vs. Atencio, Dec. 14, 1954; Vasquez vs. CA,
G.R. No. 118971. September 15, 1999).

3. Thirdly, is the imputation malicious?

In our illustration, the imputation is presumed malicious. Art. 354 of the
Revised Penal Code states that “Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be
malicious, even if it be true if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it
is shown.”

In the following cases, the presumption of malice shall NOT be applied.

a.) A private communication made by any person to another in the performance

of any legal, moral or social duty (Art. 354(1), RPC);
b.) A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks,
of any judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings which are not of
confidential nature, or of any statement, report, or speech delivered in said
proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise
of their functions duty (Art. 354(2), RPC);
c.) A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks
made by the press (GMA vs. Bustos, G.R. No. 146848, October 17, 2006).

In the following case, none of the circumstances fall under the exemption. Hence,
the presumption of malice on the person who posted the status message shall be
applied.
 IT41-SIP (Social and Professional Issues)
PAMBAYANG DALUBHASAAN NG MARILAO
College of Computer Studies
4. Fourth, is the imputation directed at a natural or juridical person or one who is dead?
In our illustrative case, the imputation is made against Myrna Garcia, a
natural person. So, this element is present. The message of element number 4 is
that you may still be liable for libel if you defame a person who is already dead.

5. The fifth element, does the imputation tend to cause the dishonor, discredit, or
contempt of the person defamed?
The answer here in our illustrative case is obviously yes. So do not post
this.

Second Illustration
Suppose Kapitan Inggo, barangay chairman of a certain barangay posted the following
status message:
Mga minamahal kong mga kabarangay, mag-ingat po kayo sa taong ito na
nasa larawan. Siya po ay mapanganib at nagkukunwaring nagtitinda ng
payong subalit siya po ay holdaper at magnanakaw. Ang pangalan po niya ay
Procopio Biglangsinghot.

 Here, Kapitan Inggo may invoke that he posted this message in good faith with good intention
and justifiable motive for protecting his constituents. If the imputation is true, Kapitan Inggo
cannot be liable for libel.
 The law states that “Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true if
no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown...” In the above, good intention
and justifiable motive were evident by the phrase, “mag-ingat po kayo.”
 In this illustration, almost ALL of the cyber libel elements are present, except element number 3.
The public information of a crime against Mr. Procopio is NOT malicious because of the motive
of Kap. Inggo is to protect and warn his constituents.

Interpreting the Libelous Statement

The Libel Case of President Corazon Aquino against Columnist Louie Beltran
According to the November 20, 1995, Manila Standard issue,
The libel suit gained worldwide attention as it probably the first time in history that an
incumbent state head went to court to seek redress for a personal case.
 When President Noynoy Aquino signed RA 10175 into law, many picture messages were circulated
on the internet, especially Facebook.
 The picture tried to depict Cory Aquino, as a democracy icon if alive, will social and reprimand
Noynoy for signing RA 10175 into law.
 Netizens were perhaps unaware that Pres. Cory Aquino was the first and perhaps only the
incumbent President who filed a libel case against a citizen.
 In this case, Mr. Beltran wrote in his column to the effect that during the coup d’ etat, President
Cory Aquino hid under her bed.
 The RTC convicted Louie Beltran, so the latter went to the Court of Appeals (CA).
 IT41-SIP (Social and Professional Issues)
PAMBAYANG DALUBHASAAN NG MARILAO
College of Computer Studies
 During the pendency of the appeal, Mr. Beltran died of a heart attack. After his death, the CA
reversed the decision of the RTC and acquitted Mr. Beltran.

In interpreting the libelous statement, the Court of Appeals held:

 “Personal hurt or embarrassment or offense even if true, is NOT however automatically
equivalent to defamation.” This is the prevailing legal doctrine.
 If the alleged libelous statement is to be interpreted by the offended party or our public official’s
embarrassment due to our comments and criticisms will automatically be equivalent to
defamation, then all of us will be liable for libel.
 In this instance, there can be no more freedom of expression to speak of.

Immunity from Libel

 Notwithstanding all libel elements’ presence, a person cannot be held liable for defamation if such
is under privileged communication.
 Privileged matters may be absolute or qualified (Flor vs. People, G.R. No. 139987, March 31,
2005).
 Privileged matters are not actionable regardless of the existence of malice.
 In absolutely privileged communications, the author's mala or bona fides the author of no
moment as the occasion provides an absolute bar to the action.
 On the other hand, in qualifiedly or conditionally privileged communications, the freedom from
liability for an otherwise defamatory utterance is conditioned on the absence of express malice
or malice in fact.
 The second kind of privilege, in fine, renders the writer or author susceptible to a suit or finding
of libel provided the prosecution established the presence of bad faith or malice in fact.
 To this genre belongs “private communications” and “fair and true report without any comments
or remarks,” falling under and described as exceptions in Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code
(GMA vs. Bustos, 2006).

Absolute Privileged Communication

In sum, cyber libel and libel are distinguished as follows:
1. As to the manner of commission, ordinary libel is committed by means of writing,
printing, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition,
cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, while cyber libel is committed
through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the
future.
2. As to the venue of filing of the complaint, ordinary libel is filed with the RTC of the
province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published OR at the
place where one of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense (ART. 360, RPC). Cyber libel is filed only with the RTC at
the place where one of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense (By analysis using as legal basis the case of Bonifacio vs.
Jimenez G.R. No.184800, May 5, 2010).
 IT41-SIP (Social and Professional Issues)
PAMBAYANG DALUBHASAAN NG MARILAO
College of Computer Studies
3. As to penalty imposed, “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.”

Liking, Sharing, and Commenting on a Libelous Message in Cyber Space

 This section shall also explain Section 5 of RA 10175 on Aiding or Abetting and Attempt in the
Commission of Cybercrimes in relation to Section 4(c)(4)-. Here the authors will adopt a very clear
and excellent illustration provided by Justice Roberto A. Abad, the ponente of the Disini, et al. vs.
Secretary of Justice case.
 The question is: are online posting such as “Liking” an openly defamatory statement,
“Commenting” on it, or “Sharing” it with others to be regarded as “aiding or abetting?”

In libel in the physical world, if Nestor places on the office bulletin board a small poster that says,
“Armand is a thief!” he could certainly be charged with libel. If Roger, seeing the poster, writes on
it, “I like this!” that could not be libel since he did not author the poster. If Arthur, passing by and
noticing the poster, writes on it, “Correct!” would that be libel? No, for he merely expresses
agreement with the statement on the poster. He still not its author. Besides, it is not clear if aiding
or abetting libel in the physical world is a crime
 IT41-SIP (Social and Professional Issues)
PAMBAYANG DALUBHASAAN NG MARILAO
College of Computer Studies
IV. ASSESSMENT
 The link for the assessment will be provided in the LMS.

V. REFERENCES
 C. Laviña. Social, Ethical, Legal and Professional Issues in Computing, Mindshapers Co.,
Inc., 2015
 https://ndvlaw.com/when-is-a-person-liable-for-the-crime-of-cyber-libel/
 https://ndvlaw.com/is-there-liability-for-cyber-libel-for-sharing-commenting-
retweeting-or-liking-on-social-media/