During the 2022 national elections, Bern posted on her Facebook page a statement that Alfredo, an incumbent mayor vying for re-election, has a pending corruption case with the Sandiganbayan for pocketing Php 20,000,000.00 of public funds under his custody. Czarina, Bern’s friend, saw the post and commented online, stating: “Bhie, true yan. Alfredo is so corrupt. Marami ding binabahay yan. Sugarol pa!” Donnabel, also Bern’s friend, reacted to Bern’s post by clicking the “like” button. Another person, Justine, who is a stranger to Bern and her friends, but who claims to be a crusader for good governance, came across the said post. Finding it relevant to her advocacy and crusade, Justine shared the link to Bern’s post on her Twitter account. Who among Bern, Czarina, Donnabel, and Justine, if any, are liable for the crime of Cyberlibel? Explain briefly. (5 points)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Only Bern and Czarina are liable for Cyberlibel, while Donnabel and Justine incur no criminal liability. Under Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. No. 10175 in relation to Article 353 of the RPC, Cyberlibel punishes the author of a defamatory post.
Unlock the full Criminal Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Who among online users can be held criminally liable for Cyberlibel under Republic Act No. 10175?
Cyberlibel liability attaches to the original author of a post and any commenter who creates new defamatory content.
In Disini v. Secretary of Justice, why did the Supreme Court declare aiding and abetting cyberlibel unconstitutional?
Penalizing mere likes or shares as aiding and abetting cyberlibel unconstitutionally infringes upon online freedom of expression.
What is the legal effect of clicking the 'like' button on a defamatory social media post?
Liking a defamatory post does not make a netizen criminally liable for cyberlibel under the Disini ruling.
Why is a commenter liable for Cyberlibel when adding new derogatory accusations to an existing thread?
Choices available with full access.
Does sharing or retweeting a link to a defamatory post make a person liable for Cyberlibel under Philippine law?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Cyberlibel Original Authorship
Under Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, in relation to Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, cyberlibel is committed through a computer system or other similar means. Criminal liability attaches to the original author or creator of a defamatory online post. An individual who publishes an unverified defamatory statement against a public officer on social media acts as an original author and is criminally liable for cyberlibel under Philippine law.
2. Liking and Sharing
In Disini v. Secretary of Justice, the Supreme Court declared Section 5 of Republic Act No. 10175 unconstitutional insofar as it punishes aiding or abetting cyberlibel. Consequently, internet users who merely like, react to, share, or retweet a defamatory post created by another do not incur criminal liability. Liking or sharing online content does not make a netizen a co-author of the original libelous post, as doing so merely expresses approval or transmits existing material without generating new defamation.
3. Defamatory Comments
When an online commenter posts a comment that introduces an entirely new, distinct, and independent defamatory allegation against a person, that commenter becomes an original author of a separate cyberlibelous statement. In Disini v. Secretary of Justice, the Supreme Court clarified that posting a comment containing new defamatory matter is not mere aiding or abetting. Instead, creating a fresh libelous narrative renders the commenter individually liable as the primary author of an independent cyberlibel offense.