Cyber Libel in the Philippines: Elements, Penalties, and Defense

Post updated on: [last-modified]

Cyber Libel is not a new or separate crime (in relation traditional libel under Revised Penal Code); rather, it is the unlawful or prohibited act of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), but committed through a computer system or any other similar means under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (R.A. No. 10175).

Elements of Cyber Libel

Because it is based on the RPC, the prosecution must prove the following elements to secure a conviction:

1. Imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect (real or imaginary), or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance.
2. Publicity or publication (the communication of the defamatory matter to third persons).
3. Malice (whether malice in law or malice in fact).
4. Directed at an identifiable person (natural or juridical, or one who is dead).
5. Tendency to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of the person defamed.

Who are Liable?

• Original Authors: Only the original author of the defamatory post can be held liable.
• Likers/Sharers: Persons who merely react to the post (e.g., Liking, Sharing, or Retweeting) are not liable, as the Supreme Court struck down the “aiding and abetting” provision for these knee-jerk reactions. (Disini Case)
• Exception: If a user “comments” and creates an entirely new defamatory story (e.g., adding original false accusations), they become liable as an original author.

Penalties

• One Degree Higher: The penalty for cyber libel is one (1) degree higher than the penalty provided for traditional libel under the RPC. This raises the penalty to prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period.
• Fines: Despite the increased penalty, judges maintain the discretion to impose a fine only, rather than imprisonment, in accordance with Administrative Circular No. 08-2008 and Article 75 of the RPC.
• Prescriptive Period: The crime of cyber libel prescribes (can no longer be filed) in one (1) year. The prescriptive period begins to run from the day the crime is discovered by the offended party, as they can hardly be expected to institute proceedings without prior knowledge of the online post.

Defenses

• Truth and Good Motives: The accused can be acquitted if they can prove that the imputed matter is true AND that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends.
• If it is a Privileged Communication, malice is not presumed, and the statement is not actionable, in the following circumstances:
  1. A private communication made in the performance of any legal, moral, or social duty.
  2. A fair and true report, made in good faith and without comments, of official proceedings.
  3. Fair commentaries on matters of public interest.
• Absence of Actual Malice (Public Figures): When the defamed person is a public official or public figure, the defense of absence of “actual malice” applies. The prosecution must prove that the accused made the statement with actual knowledge that it was false, or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
• Double Jeopardy: A person cannot be charged for the exact same online post under both traditional Libel (Article 353, RPC) and Cyber Libel (R.A. 10175). Charging the offender under both laws for a single publication is a blatant violation of the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy.