Online Libel Penalties in the Philippines: Fine or Imprisonment After Soliman

The Supreme Court recently settled an important question about online libel in the Philippines: can a person convicted of online libel be sentenced to pay a fine only, without imprisonment? In People v. Soliman (G.R. No. 256700, April 25, 2023), the Court answered yes, clarifying the rules on penalties for online libel under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175).

This ruling matters because online defamation cases are increasingly common in the age of social media. Understanding the possible penalties helps both accusers and accused persons know what to expect.

The Facts of the Case

Jomerito Soliman posted a lengthy, angry Facebook status in January 2018 accusing Waldo Carpio, an official of the Bureau of Plant Industry, of delaying the release of Soliman's sanitary and phytosanitary clearance. The post used strong language and alleged that Carpio was engaged in "backdoor activities."

Carpio filed a criminal complaint for online libel. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City convicted Soliman and sentenced him to pay a fine of P50,000.00 — but no imprisonment. Soliman did not appeal and paid the fine.

The prosecution, however, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court should have imposed imprisonment because Section 6 of RA 10175 requires a penalty one degree higher than that for traditional libel under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

The Issue

The sole question before the Supreme Court was whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in imposing a fine only, instead of imprisonment, for online libel.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the prosecution's petition and affirmed the conviction with fine only. In doing so, the Court made several important clarifications.

First, the Court ruled that the penalty of fine may be imposed as an alternative to imprisonment for online libel. Article 355 of the RPC, as amended by RA 10951, states that libel is punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from P40,000 to P1,200,000, or both. The word "or" shows that fine and imprisonment are alternatives.

Second, the Court explained that Section 6 of RA 10175, which mandates a penalty one degree higher for crimes committed through information and communications technology, applies to fines as well as imprisonment. Under Article 75 of the RPC, a fine may be increased or reduced by degrees. Each degree is one-fourth of the maximum amount prescribed by law.

Applying this rule, the Court computed the fine for online libel as follows:

• Maximum fine for traditional libel: P1,200,000
• One degree higher: add one-fourth of the maximum (P300,000)
• Maximum fine for online libel: P1,500,000
• Minimum fine: P40,000 (unchanged, per Article 75)

Thus, the range of fine for online libel is P40,000 to P1,500,000. The P50,000 fine imposed on Soliman was well within this range.

Third, the Court clarified that Administrative Circular No. 08-2008, which provides guidelines on imposing fine only in libel cases, applies to online libel as well. The Circular does not remove imprisonment as a penalty; it merely allows judges, in their sound discretion, to impose a fine only when the circumstances warrant.

Fourth, the Court addressed the right against double jeopardy. The prosecution argued that it could question the penalty through certiorari. The Court explained that a certiorari petition alleging grave abuse of discretion does not place the accused in double jeopardy — but only if the court is found to have acted without jurisdiction. Here, since the trial court acted within its jurisdiction and committed no grave abuse of discretion, modifying the penalty would violate Soliman's right against double jeopardy.

Practical Takeaways

• Fine only is possible. A person convicted of online libel may be sentenced to pay a fine only, without imprisonment, depending on the circumstances.
• The fine range is P40,000 to P1,500,000. The Supreme Court clarified the correct computation under Section 6 of RA 10175 and Article 75 of the RPC.
• The law prevails over the IRR. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 10175 stated a different fine range, but the Court held that the law itself controls.
• Judges have discretion. Courts may consider mitigating circumstances, such as provocation or immediate apology, in deciding whether to impose fine only.
• Double jeopardy protects final judgments. Once a conviction becomes final because the accused did not appeal, the prosecution cannot seek a higher penalty absent grave abuse of discretion.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.