VIOLATION of SECTION 4(C)(4): of

the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012

PEOPLE
vs. SANTOS,
RESSA and
RAPPLER, INC
FACTS:
On May 29, 2012, A report
entitled
“CJ Using SUVs of Controversial
Businessman” was published.
The report which contains
malicious and defamatory
remarks against Mr. Wilfredo
Keng was posted on the
Rappler, Inc. official website.
Alleging Mr. Keng’s “Shady past?”, Petitioner report that Mr. Keng let CJ
Corona to use his private car during the CJ’s impeachment trial. Defamatory
statements were alluded to Mr. Keng’s alleged involvement in smuggling,
illegal drugs and the murder of Manila Councilor Chika Go in 2002.

Through intermediaries, he sought Rappler to rectify the report of which

caused him and his family great
according to him has
shame and public ridicule.
Thinking and hoping that the report would just die, on February 19, 2019, the
same report resurfaced on the Rappler Inc website and was updated. Hence,
Petitioners were charged with Cyberlibel.
 The Prosecution presented documentary and
testimonial pieces of evidence.

Those presented were:

Prosecution
• Mr. Marcelino Malonzo, former bank manager of Security
Bank
• SA Christopher M. Paz, Chief, Digital Forensic Laboratory of
NBI
• Ma. Florina G. Cureg, PDEA Systems Analysts (Letters of PDEA
Chief Pedrozo and Aquino)
• Atty. Leonard de Vera
• Ms. Katerina Francisco, former researcher and writer for
Rappler, Inc.
• Mr. Wilfredo Keng, complainant.
 The Defense likewise presented
documentary and testimonial pieces of
evidence.
DEFENSE • Atty. Leo Edwin D. Lueterio, Legal
Services of NBI. (MEMO of addressed
to Director, Atty. Dante Gierran, on
NBI legal opinion.)
• Ma. Rosario F. Hofileña, Senior Editor
of Rappler, Inc. (Discussed the
organization of Rappler, Inc.)
 CHAPTER II
PUNISHABLE ACTS
SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. — The following acts
constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable
under this Act:
CYBERLIBE xxxx

L under RA
(c) Content-related Offenses:
xxxx
10175 (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.
IRR of RA 10175
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
shall be punished with prision correccional in its maximum period
to prision mayor in its minimum period or a fine ranging from Six
Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) up to the maximum amount determined
by Court, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be brought
by the offended party: Provided, That this provision applies only to the
original author of the post or online libel, and not to others who
simply receive the post and react to it.
 Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is 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.

Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. — 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, except in the following cases:
LIBEL 1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any
legal, moral or social duty; and
(RPC) 2. 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.

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.
 Based on the elements of Cyberlibel under
RA 10175

1. DISCREDITABLE ACT or Condition Concerning Another

An allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes to a person the commission of a crime, the possession
of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance which tends to
dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt or which ends to blacken the memory of the dead.

2. PUBLICATION of the Charge

In libel, publication means making the defamatory matter, after it is written known to someone other than
the person against whom it has been written. (Brillantes vs CA)

3. IDENTITY of the PERSON DEFAMED

4. EXISTENCE OF MALICE [DISINI vs SECRETARY (Malice of Law, there is malice of law in the case the
offended party is a private person)]

5. COMMITTED through COMPUTER SYSTEM

The crime has not yet prescribed

• The Supreme Court already ruled in the case of Panaguiton,

Jr. v. Department of Justice that Act No. 3326 applies to
offenses punishable by special laws which do not provide for
their own prescriptive periods.

• A painstaking review of RA No. 10175 reveals that it does not

provide for its own prescriptive period, thus the provisions
of Act No. 3326 is controlling.
Liability of accused Ressa and Santos Jr.

• Considering that cyberlibel constitutes prohibited acts of libel under

the Revised Penal Code, the persons responsible under Article 360 of
the same are the very same persons to be held liable for cyberlibel.

• A perusal of the article dated 19 February 2014 will show the name of
Accused Santos, Jr. as the author of the said article. And during pre-
trial, both the prosecution and the defense admitted that Accused
Ressa is the chief executive officer and executive editor of Rappler,
Inc.
Corporate liability of Rappler Inc.

• The prosecution, in this regard, failed to prove the corporate liability

of Rappler, Inc. under Section 9 of R.A. 10175. The prosecution failed
to establish the above-enumerated elements. 

• Aside from the fact that it was not alleged in the information, the
prosecution never attempted to adduce evidence to impute any
corporate liability on Rappler, Inc.; thus, Rappler, Inc. cannot be held
liable for payment of a fine under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of
2012. 
 FINAL NOTE

• Freedom of expression and of the press burdened with responsibility

for even the Journalists’ Code of Ethics exhorts all journalists to
“recognize the duty to air the other side and the duty to correct
substantive errors promptly.”

• The Courts are tasked to strike a balance between the enforcement of

one’s right to speak his mind and the protection of another’s right
against defamation of his honor and reputation without regard to the
stature of the personalities involved. This is what happened here. 
COURT
RULING:
GUILTY