Cyber Libel Prescription in the Philippines: One-Year Rule and the Limits of Unsigned Resolutions

The Supreme Court has settled two important questions in Philippine criminal law: how long the government has to file cyber libel charges, and whether an unsigned resolution of the Court can bind future cases. In a decision dated April 8, 2026, the Court En Banc denied motions for reconsideration in Causing v. People (G.R. No. 258524), affirming that cyber libel prescribes in one year from discovery by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents. The ruling also clarifies that unsigned resolutions do not create binding precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis.

The Case Before the Court

The case arose from criminal complaints for cyber libel filed against petitioner Berteni Cataluña Causing before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The RTC denied Causing's Motion to Quash the Informations, and the Court affirmed this denial in a Decision dated October 11, 2023. Both Causing and the respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought partial reconsideration.

The Issue: How Long Does Cyber Libel Prescribe?

The central legal question was whether cyber libel prescribes in one year or fifteen years. The OSG argued for fifteen years, citing an unsigned Resolution in Tolentino v. People (2018) and pointing out that cyber libel carries a heavier penalty than ordinary libel. Causing, for his part, argued that the prescriptive period should be counted from the date of publication, not from discovery.

The Court's Ruling: One Year, From Discovery

The Court rejected both arguments. First, it held that cyber libel prescribes in one year under paragraph 4 of Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, as cited in the decision. The reasoning: Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175 (the Cybercrime Prevention Act) does not create a new crime. It merely recognizes a computer system as another means of committing the existing crime of libel defined in Article 353, in relation to Article 355, of the Revised Penal Code. The heavier penalty under the Cybercrime Prevention Act—one degree higher than ordinary libel—does not change the nature of the offense.

The Court also noted the legislative history behind the one-year period. Republic Act No. 4661 shortened the prescriptive period for written libel from two years to one year, in part to benefit members of the press. This rationale applies equally to cyber libel today.

Second, the Court ruled that the prescriptive period is reckoned from discovery by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, consistent with Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, as cited in the decision. The Court declined to presume that a complainant discovered a defamatory post at the moment it was uploaded, leaving that question to be resolved during trial.

The Significance of Unsigned Resolutions

The Court also took the opportunity to resolve conflicting rulings on whether unsigned resolutions can serve as binding precedent. It held that under Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the Constitution, only decisions and signed resolutions—which show the concurrence of a majority of the Members who deliberated and voted—can lay down doctrine. Unsigned resolutions, like minute resolutions, are binding only on the parties through res judicata. They are not published in the Philippine Reports and cannot bind third persons.

Practical Takeaways

• Cyber libel charges must be filed within one year from discovery by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents. After that, the crime is prescribed.
• The one-year period runs from discovery, not publication. The Court did not presume that a complainant discovered an online post at the moment it was uploaded; this is a factual question for trial.
• Cyber libel is not a new crime. It is the same crime of libel under the Revised Penal Code, committed through a computer system. The heavier penalty does not extend the prescriptive period.
• Unsigned resolutions carry limited weight. They bind only the parties to that case and cannot be invoked as stare decisis against non-parties. Only decisions and signed resolutions of the Supreme Court create binding precedent.
• Prescription is a defense that requires evidence. A motion to quash based on prescription must be supported by proof; the Court will not presume facts in the accused's favor at that stage.

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