By: Cyrene R. Camposano and Karl Arian A. Castillo
Recent data show that Filipinos spend the highest amount of time online compared to the rest of the world. According to DICT Undersecretary Jocelle Batapa-Sigue, 83% of Filipinos are internet users, spending more than 10 hours on the internet every day, with almost 99% being on social media platforms.[1] With this rising interconnectivity and exposure to digital platforms, cyber libel has become a significant issue.
Libel is the public and malicious imputation of a crime, 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 person or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.[2] The traditional concept of libel involves print media, radio and television broadcasts. With the passage of Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, the application of the law penalizing libel has been extended to cyberspace and electronic platforms. Cyber libel is simply the commission of libel through a computer system or any other similar means.[3]
A unique consideration in the prosecution of cyber libel cases is venue or where to file the case. In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional—filing a criminal complaint in the improper venue will result in dismissal. Crimes committed in cyberspace, particularly cyber libel cases, present challenges in the matter of venue. Because of the peculiarity of cyber libel, specifically the fact that cyberspace or digital space is not a physical location, the general rules on venue have limited application.
For traditional libel, the venue may be where the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense or where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published.[4] The rationale behind the rule is to prevent the indiscriminate laying of venue in libel cases in distant, far-flung areas to cause undue burden to the accused.
However, ascertaining where a defamatory material is first printed and published in the digital space is impossible. The Supreme Court, in Bonifacio[5], explicitly stated the inapplicability of the first printing and publication rule in libel cases committed through digital platforms. The Court explained that applying the first printing and publication rule in libel committed in cyberspace would result in authors being sued for online libel anywhere in the Philippines. With the inapplicability of the first printing and publication rule in cyber libel cases, offended parties are limited to filing the case in the place where they actually reside at the time of the commission of the offense.
Cyber libel carries a graver penalty than traditional libel. The penalty for cyber libel is one (1) degree higher. Traditional libel is punishable by fine or imprisonment with imprisonment for traditional libel ranging from prision correccional in its minimum to medium periods, or six (6) months and 1 day to four (4) years and two (2) months.[6] Consequently, imprisonment for cyber libel, which is one (1) degree higher[7], is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or four (4) years two (2) months and one (1) day to eight (8) years.
Cyber libel is also punishable by fine. In a recent decision, the Supreme Court clarified that Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 08-2008 or the Guidelines in the Observance of a Rule of Preference in the Imposition of Penalties in Libel Cases applies to cyber libel cases.[8] Administrative Circular No. 08-2008 demonstrates the Court’s preference for the imposition of fine rather than imprisonment for libel cases under certain circumstances. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that the application of Administrative Circular No. 08-2008 does not remove imprisonment as penalty for cyber libel. In the computation of fine as penalty for cyber libel, the Supreme Court, in the case of Soliman[9], stated that the range of the penalty shall be P40,000 to P1,500,000.00.
The legal consequences of cyber libel are far from insignificant. The Cybercrime Prevention Act makes the consequences of cyber libel graver than libelous remarks made in person, print media, radio and television. As cyberspace is now an extension of the social world, we must be as cautious in our digital relations as we are in the physical world.
Karl Arian A. Castillo can be reached at kaacastillo@fnslaw.com.ph.
[1] The Philippine Star, DICT: 83% of Pinoys are internet users, but…, accessed at https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2023/06/04/2271289/dict-83-pinoys-are-internet-users-but
[2] Revised Penal Code, Article 353; Philippine Daily Inquirer, et al. v. Juan Ponce Enrile, G.R. No. 229440, July 14, 2021.
[3] Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (the “Cybercrime Prevention Act”), Section 4.
[4] Winona M. Bonifacio, et al. v. Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 149 and Jessie John P. Gimenez, G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Revised Penal Code, Article 355.
[7] Cybercrime Prevention Act, Section 6.
[8] People of the Philippines v. Jomerito S. Soliman, G.R. No. 256700, April 25, 2023.
[9] Ibid.