The Supreme Court (SC) has reaffirmed that cyber libel cases prescribe within one year from the time the offense is discovered, rejecting attempts to extend the period or reckon it from publication.
In a resolution penned by SC associate justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the high court en banc denied separate motions for reconsideration filed by Berteni Cataluña Causing and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
The case stemmed from a complaint filed in 2020 by Cotabato representative Ferdinand Hernandez over Facebook posts accusing him of misusing more than ₱200 million in Marawi relief funds.
Prosecutors filed charges in 2021, but Causing sought to dismiss them, arguing the case had already prescribed.
Lower courts earlier ruled that cyber libel carries a longer prescriptive period under the Cybercrime Prevention Act.
The SC, however, clarified that cyber libel follows the same one-year prescription period as traditional libel under the Revised Penal Code.
The tribunal also rejected the OSG’s argument that the offense should prescribe in 15 years, as well as Causing’s position that prescription should begin from the date of publication.
“The law clearly states that prescription runs from the time the crime is discovered by the offended party or the authorities,” the court said.
The court emphasized that cyber libel is not a separate crime but simply libel committed through a computer system, and that higher penalties under the cybercrime law do not automatically extend the prescriptive period.
It also dismissed the notion that online posts are deemed immediately discovered upon publication, noting that access depends on factors such as privacy settings and Internet connectivity.
The ruling further clarified that a previous decision in Tolentino v. People, which suggested a longer prescriptive period, is not binding because it was issued through an unsigned resolution.
Separate opinions were filed by several justices, including senior associate Justice Marvic Leonen, who argued for the decriminalization of libel involving public officials, and associate justice Antonio Kho Jr., who dissented on the prescriptive period.
