Home / A Dose of Law / About Cyber Libel

Published 25 February 2019, The Daily Tribune

The Internet has disrupted every aspect of our lives including how we gather
information, communicate with friends and family, and conduct our businesses. But
the good always comes with the bad. While the Internet has revolutionized every
sphere of human activity, it also facilitated the criminal activities of nefarious
individuals.

Recognizing this dual aspect of this paradigm shifting activity, Congress enacted
Republic Act 10175, also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. This
new law defined and punished offenses, which may be grouped as follows: offenses
against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data systems;
computer-related offenses, such as computer forgery, fraud and identity theft, and
content-related offenses, such as cybersex, child pornography and, most
significantly, cyber libel.

The constitutionality of the provision on cyber libel was subsequently assailed in

Disini v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. 203335, 11 February 2014). The Supreme Court
(SC), however, ruled that libel is not a constitutionally protected speech. It follow s,
therefore, the cyber libel is not unconstitutional as well.

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 does not really define cyber libel. It
penalizes libel, as defined under the Revised Penal Code, but imposes a higher
penalty because of the use of information and communication technologies. In
Disini, the SC explained this qualifying circumstance arises from the fact that in
“using the technology in question, the offender often evades identification and is
able to reach far more victims or cause greater harm.”

The elements of libel are the allegation of a discreditabl e act or condition

concerning another; publication of the charge; identity of the person defamed, and
existence of malice.

As to the first requirement, the allegation must be a malicious imputation of a crime

or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or a ny act, omission, condition, status or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural or
juridical person or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. For cyber libel in
particular, the publication requirement is satisfied w hen the allegation is made
publicly through the use of information and communication technologies.

For the third requisite, it is not necessary that the person defamed is named. If the
totality of the publication makes it possible to determine who the defa med person
is, then this element is also satisfied. Finally, malice exists when the offender
makes the defamatory statement with the knowledge that it is false or with reckless
disregard of whether it was false or not.

When committed through information and communication technologies, libel

becomes cyber libel, which carries with it a higher penalty by one degree under
Section 6 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act. Specifically, libel under the Revised
Penal Code is punished with prision correccional in its mi nimum period, which is
from six months and one day to two years and four months and medium period,
which is from two years, four months and one day to four years and two months; or
a fine ranging from P200 to P6,000 or both.
However, if it is cyber libel, the penalty is increased by one degree. Thus, the
penalty is prision mayor in its minimum period, which is from six years and one day
to eight years and medium period, which is from eight years and one day to 10
years.

In prosecuting the crime of libel or cyber libel, venue is jurisdictional. For ordinary
libel, the venue, where the complainant is a private individual, is limited to only
either of two places, namely: 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.

However, for cyber libel, the place where the defamatory article was printed and
first published is impossible to ascertain. It also cannot be where the defamatory
online article was first accessed. In Bonifacio v. RTC Makati City, the SC said if it
allows cyber libel to be filed where the article is first accessed, the author of the
defamatory article may be sued anywhere in the Philippines. The private
complainant can just allege that he ac cessed the defamatory online article in a far -
flung place. For instance, a blogger in Manila who posts a defamatory article may
then be sued in Ilocos Sur, where the offended party allegedly first accessed the
article. To prevent this chaotic situation, th e High Court effectively limited the
venue to the place where the complainant actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense.

The Internet is a potent medium. If used for good, it can lead to boundless benefits
to society. But if utilized for nefarious ends, the prejudice to the community is
unimaginable. As Uncle Ben in Spider -Man said, “With great power comes great
responsibility.” The Internet has given us great power. May we use it responsibly
for the good of humanity.

For comments and questions, please send email to cabdo@divinalaw.com