Cyber Libel Prescribes One Year from Discovery
The advent of information and communications technology introduced new platforms for the commission of traditional crimes, such as libel. Cyber libel is an offense that involves the unlawful or prohibited acts of libel committed through a computer system or any other similar means (Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175). However, the law did not expressly provide a prescriptive period for the offense, leading to conflicting interpretations in the lower courts. The Supreme Court conclusively settled this legal issue by definitively ruling on the prescriptive period for cyber libel and its computation (Causing v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 258524, April 8, 2026 “Causing Case”). As it stands now, the crime of cyber libel prescribes one (1) year from the time it is discovered.
The Nature of Cyber Libel
To determine the correct prescriptive period, it is essential to first understand the legal nature of cyber libel. The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 does not create an entirely new crime but merely recognizes a computer system as another means of committing libel, which is already defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code (Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175; Article 353 and Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code). Cyber libel is essentially the old crime of libel transposed to operate in cyberspace, making the deliberate use of information and communication technology a qualifying circumstance (Disini, Jr. v. The Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014).
The One-Year Prescriptive Period
The Supreme Court has definitively ruled that the prescriptive period for cyber libel is exactly one year (Causing Case). Previously, there was judicial confusion as to whether the prescriptive period should be twelve years, fifteen years, or one year (Section 1 of Act No. 3326; Article 90, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code; Article 90, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code). The fifteen-year period was previously suggested by an unsigned resolution, which has now been abandoned (Tolentino v. People, G.R. No. 240310, August 6, 2018).
The Court ruled that the twelve-year prescription rule does NOT apply to cyber libel because the offense is not penalized by a special law without its own prescriptive period; rather, it is a crime inherently defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code (Section 1 of Act No. 3326). Consequently, the explicit provision governing the crime of libel or other similar offenses, which sets the prescription at one year, must be applied (Article 90, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code).
Although the penalty for cyber libel is increased by one degree higher than traditional libel—making the imposable penalty afflictive—the specific provision setting a one-year period for libel prevails over the general provision on afflictive penalties (Section 6 of Republic Act No. 10175; Article 90, paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Revised Penal Code). The Court emphasized the fundamental rule of statutory construction that a special and specific provision prevails over a general one. Furthermore, penal statutes regarding the prescription of crimes must be strictly construed against the State and liberally in favor of the accused (People v. Terrado, G.R. No. L-23625, November 25, 1983). Applying this principle, the shortest prescriptive period—one year—must be adopted to favor the accused.
Reckoning Point of Prescription: The Discovery Rule
Another critical issue resolved by the Court is when the one-year prescriptive period begins to run. The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents (Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code).
Arguments suggesting that the period should start upon the publication of the online post due to the widespread reach of the internet were firmly rejected by the Supreme Court. The Court clarified that the rule on “constructive notice”—which legally presumes knowledge to the whole world when documents are registered in a public registry—CANNOT be applied to cyber libel. Unlike public registries that are readily accessible to everyone, social media platforms feature customizable privacy tools that can restrict the visibility of uploaded posts (Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College, G.R. No. 202666, September 29, 2014). Access to a post strictly depends on having an internet connection, account logins, and proper network connections with the user.
Therefore, there is absolutely NO legal or factual basis to presume that an offended party has constructively read or discovered a defamatory material at the exact time it is published online. The offended party cannot be expected to institute criminal proceedings for libel without prior knowledge of the libelous matter (Alcantara v. Amoranto, G.R. No. L-12493, February 29, 1960). The prescriptive period may only be reckoned from the date of publication if it factually coincides with the date of discovery. Because prescription is a matter of defense, the burden lies on the accused to prove the exact date the crime was discovered by presenting substantial evidence during the trial (Causing Case).
20 April 2026
About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices
Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.
