MANILA, Philippines – The latest ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) clarified rules on cyber

libel cases.

The High Court said:

 The prescription period for cyber libel should be based on the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and
not Republic Act (RA) No. 3326. The RPC sets the prescription period to one year. In criminal cases,
prescription refers to the period when a complaint or charge may be filed.
 The count of the cyber libel prescription period starts from the discovery by the offended party of the
allegedly libelous remarks.

The clarifications were part of an October 11, 2023 decision that was uploaded only on January
19. This was in relation to a petition filed by lawyer Berteni “Toto” Causing which was
dismissed by the High Court. Causing was spokesperson of the family of Percy Lapid, the
radio broadcaster who was gunned down in 2022.

Causing filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court – a remedy used to review grave
abuse of discretion – to assail the 2021 decision of Quezon City RTC Branch 93 in a cyber
libel case filed against him in 2020.

Causing’s case

Then-lawmaker Ferdinand Hernandez filed a complaint against Causing with the Quezon City
prosecutor’s office for cyber libel, under section 4(c)(4) of RA No. 10175 or the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012. The complaint was filed in relation to Articles 353 and 355 of the
Revised Penal Code.

Other Stories
Ex-Thai PM Thaksin says he’s ready to face royal insult charges
Former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra says he would meet prosecutors, but he was not concerned about the case and was ready to
fight it
Agreements and disagreements on the West Philippine Sea, explained
We trace deals and agreements on the West Philippine Sea, beginning 2012
UK Foreign Secretary Cameron held video call with hoaxer
UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron is making the hoax public 'in case the video of the Foreign Secretary is manipulated and subsequently
used, and to ensure that others are aware of this risk'

Hernandez, the complainant in Causing’s case, said that on February 4 and April 29, 2019,
Causing uploaded posts on Facebook “which made it appear that he stole public funds intended
for Marawi siege victims.” Later, the prosecutors filed two separate cases on May 10, 2021,
against Causing.

Causing filed a motion to quash, arguing that the posts in question were uploaded on February
4 and April 29, 2019, while the complaint was filed only on December 16, 2020. He pointed
out that the cyber libel cases against him had prescribed or lapsed because the filing was only
done over a year after the posts were put up.

In 2021, the RTC denied Causing’s petition for lack of merit, maintaining that the two cyber
libel cases had not prescribed. The court explained that Hernandez filed his complaint on
December 17, 2020 – “two weeks from the discovery of the purported crimes.” Causing then
brought the case to the SC.

Prescription period for libel

In 2019, the Department of Justice said the prescription for cyber libel was within 12 years .
This means that one can be sued for an alleged libelous post within 12 years of its publication.