MANILA — The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the doctrine that cyberlibel cases prescribe one year from the time of discovery, and not from the date the material is published online.

In a 30-page resolution dated April 8, the Court En Banc denied separate motions for reconsideration filed by Berteni Causing and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

The Court cited Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, stating that the prescriptive period begins when the crime is discovered by the offended party, authorities, or their agents.

“The fundamental duty of the Court is to apply the law, regardless of its implications. The Court is not in a position to disregard the foregoing provision of law, lest it tread upon impermissible judicial legislation and violate the elementary principle of separation of powers,” it said.

The Court also rejected the argument that online publication automatically means the offended party is presumed to have seen the content, noting that social media posts are not always immediately visible or accessible to all users.

The case stemmed from a libel complaint filed by a former lawmaker against then Marikina City councilor Berteni Causing in 2020 over allegations that he pocketed P200 million in relief goods. The complainant said he discovered the post in February and April 2019.

The Supreme Court noted that Causing was charged before a regional trial court in 2021.

Causing earlier sought to quash the information, arguing that more than one year had passed since the post was uploaded. However, the RTC denied the motion and ruled that cyberlibel prescribes in 12 years under the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

The Supreme Court ruled that cyberlibel is subject to a one-year prescriptive period from discovery, treating it as libel committed through a computer system rather than a separate offense.

“The Cybercrime Prevention Act simply recognizes a computer system as a means of publishing defamatory material and makes the use of information and communication technology in the commission of libel,” it said.

It added that lawmakers did not create a new crime for cyberlibel, as libel is already punished under the Revised Penal Code.

The Court further stressed that determining the prescriptive period of crimes is within Congress’ authority.

“Considering the absence of any ambiguity or doubt in the applicable law concerning the reckoning point of the prescriptive period of cyberlibel under Article 91 of the RPC, there is no room for interpretation; the Court’s duty is to simply apply it,” it said.

In a concurring opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said the one-year prescriptive period should apply only to cases involving private individuals, and reiterated his position that libel involving public figures should be decriminalized.

“The continued punishment of comments and criticisms directed at public figures hampers the promotion of an atmosphere of uninhibited discussion and opinions relating to the proper conduct of those in public office,” Leonen said.

He added that criminal libel may have a chilling effect on free expression and “contradicts our notions of a genuinely democratic society.”

“In my view, the adoption and strict application of the actual malice test in cases involving public figures is a recognition of the importance of freedom of speech and expression,” he said, while noting that the State must still protect private individuals from defamatory remarks.