Angelina maintains a website where visitors can give their comments on the posted pictures of the goods she sells in her exclusive boutique. Bettina posted a comment that the red Birkin bag shown in Angelina’s website is fake and that Angelina is known to sell counterfeit items.
Angelina wants to file a case against Bettina. She seeks your advice. What advice will you give her? (4%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
I will advise Angelina to file a criminal case for Cyberlibel under Article 353 in relation to Article 355 of the RPC and Section 4(c)(4) of RA 10175 against Bettina. Under Article 353 of the RPC, libel is
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
What law penalizes libel committed through a computer system or other similar means in the Philippines?
Cyberlibel is defined and penalized under Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175 in relation to Article 353 RPC.
What legal presumption applies when a defamatory statement is posted against a private individual online?
Under Article 354 RPC, malice is presumed by law in every defamatory imputation against a private individual.
Who incurs criminal liability for a defamatory comment posted on a public boutique website?
Criminal liability for cyberlibel attaches directly to the original author of the defamatory post.
How is the element of publication satisfied in a prosecution for cyberlibel?
Choices available with full access.
What is the legal effect of publicly accusing a private merchant of selling counterfeit goods on her website?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Cyberlibel Elements
Cyberlibel under Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175, in relation to Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, is committed through a computer system or other similar means. The essential elements require a public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice, or defect, real or imaginary, tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person. Posting defamatory statements on an online comment section accessible to the public satisfies the element of publication using a computer system.
2. Presumption of Malice
Under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious, even if true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. When defamatory comments are directed against a private individual who is neither a public officer nor a public figure, legal malice is automatically presumed by operation of law. The burden rests entirely upon the author of the defamatory post to prove good faith, justifiable motive, or the defense of privileged communication.
3. Online Commenter Liability
Under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2010 and established jurisprudence, criminal liability for cyberlibel attaches directly to the original author of the defamatory comment. While website owners or hosts who merely react or provide a comment platform are not liable for user-generated posts unless they actively alter or adopt the content, the individual user who crafts and posts defamatory imputations on a public website incurs sole criminal responsibility as the author of the cyberlibelous statement.