Cyber Libel Prescription: One Year from Discovery, Not Publication

The Supreme Court has settled two important questions in Philippine criminal law: how long does the crime of cyber libel take to prescribe, and when does that prescriptive period begin to run? In a Resolution 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—not from the date of publication. The ruling also clarifies that unsigned resolutions of the Court do not create binding legal doctrines.

The Case: A Question of Timing

The case arose from criminal complaints for cyber libel filed against petitioner Berteni Cataluña Causing. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City denied Causing's motion to quash the Informations, and the Supreme Court affirmed this denial in its Decision dated October 11, 2023. Causing argued that the charges should be dismissed because the prescriptive period should be counted from the date the defamatory materials were posted online, not from when the complainant discovered them. The Office of the Solicitor General, on the other hand, argued that cyber libel should prescribe in 15 years, not one year, because the penalty is afflictive.

Issue 1: Are Unsigned Resolutions Doctrinal?

The OSG relied on an unsigned Resolution in Tolentino v. People (2018), which supposedly held that cyber libel prescribes in 15 years. Under Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the Constitution, a doctrine laid down by the Court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may only be modified or reversed by the Court sitting en banc.

The Court rejected this argument. Under Rule 13, Section 6 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court (A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC), the Court adjudicates cases through decisions, signed resolutions, and unsigned resolutions. Only decisions and signed resolutions bear the signatures of the Members who took part in the deliberations and voted on the case. Unsigned resolutions are issued when the ruling has no significant doctrinal value or is of minimal interest to the public.

The Court ruled that unsigned resolutions are not doctrinal and are binding only on the parties to that case. They cannot be invoked as stare decisis against non-parties. However, they do serve as res judicata between the parties themselves. This ruling reconciles conflicting jurisprudence, re-affirming Denila v. Republic and RMFPU Holdings, Inc. v. Forbes Park Association, Inc. over Eizmendi v. Fernandez.

Issue 2: One Year, Not Fifteen

The Court firmly held that cyber libel prescribes in one year under Article 90, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. The reasoning is straightforward:

• Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act) does not create a new crime. It merely refers to the crime of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, when committed through a computer system.
• The crime of libel is defined in Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 355 merely identifies the means of publication—writing, printing, radio, and similar means. The Cybercrime Prevention Act simply adds computer systems and ICT as another means.
• The heavier penalty under Section 6 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act (one degree higher) does not change the nature of the crime. The legislative history of Republic Act No. 4661, which shortened libel's prescriptive period to one year, shows a consistent intent to treat libel differently from other crimes on the same penal scale.

Issue 3: Presumption of Discovery

The Court also rejected Causing's argument that the offended party should be presumed to have discovered the defamatory post at the time it was uploaded. The issue of when discovery occurred is a question of fact that requires evidence. The Court emphasized that Causing could present evidence during trial to prove that the charges had already prescribed.

Practical Takeaways

• Cyber libel prescribes in one year from discovery by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents—not from the date of publication.
• The prescriptive period begins upon actual discovery, not constructive or presumed discovery. When discovery occurred is a factual question that must be proven at trial.
• Unsigned resolutions of the Supreme Court are not binding precedents on third parties. Only decisions and signed resolutions create doctrines under Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the Constitution.
• 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.
• Persons facing cyber libel charges should raise prescription as a defense and be prepared to present evidence of when the offended party actually discovered the defamatory material.

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