Cyber Libel Prescription: One Year, Not 15, and Why Unsigned Resolutions Are Not Doctrine

The Supreme Court has settled two important points of criminal procedure and legal doctrine: cyber libel prescribes in one year from discovery, and unsigned resolutions of the Court do not create binding precedent. In Causing v. People (G.R. No. 258524, April 8, 2026), the Court En Banc denied motions for reconsideration and clarified how the prescriptive period for online defamation is counted, while also resolving a conflict among its own divisions on the doctrinal weight of unsigned resolutions.

The Case Before the Court

The case arose from cyber libel charges filed against petitioner Berteni Cataluña Causing before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The trial court denied Causing's motion to quash the Informations, and the Supreme Court affirmed that denial in its Decision dated October 11, 2023. Causing sought partial reconsideration, arguing that the prescriptive period should run from the date of publication, not discovery. The Office of the Solicitor General, for its part, argued that cyber libel should prescribe in 15 years, not one.

The Issue: How Long Does Cyber Libel Prescribe?

The central question was whether cyber libel—libel committed through a computer system—prescribes in one year under Article 90, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, or in 15 years under paragraph 2 of the same article, as the OSG argued.

The OSG relied on an unsigned Resolution in Tolentino v. People, which suggested a 15-year prescriptive period. The Court rejected this argument on two levels.

Unsigned Resolutions Are Not Doctrinal

First, the Court clarified that an unsigned resolution cannot lay down a doctrine or principle of law under Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the Constitution. That provision states that 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 explained that the "decision" contemplated by the Constitution refers to dispositions that show the concurrence of a majority of the Members who took part in the deliberations. Under the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, only decisions and signed resolutions bear the signatures of the Members who participated. Unsigned resolutions, by contrast, are issued when a ruling has no significant doctrinal value or is of minimal interest to the public.

The Court also noted that only decisions and signed resolutions are published in the Philippine Reports. It would be unfair, the Court reasoned, to hold that a ruling binding on all persons should be sourced from a disposition furnished only to the parties. The Court therefore re-affirmed its rulings in Denila v. Republic and RMFPU Holdings, Inc. v. Forbes Park Association, Inc., holding that an unsigned resolution is not doctrinal and binds only the parties thereto as res judicata.

Cyber Libel Is Libel: One-Year Prescription

On the merits, the Court affirmed that cyber libel prescribes in one year. Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act) does not create a new crime. It merely recognizes a computer system as another means of committing libel as defined in Article 353, in relation to Article 355, of the Revised Penal Code.

The Court reasoned that when Congress referred to Article 355 in defining cyber libel, it must be presumed to know the applicable prescriptive periods in the Revised Penal Code. Had Congress intended to exclude cyber libel from the one-year period for "libel or other similar offenses," it would have said so.

The Court also traced the legislative history of libel's prescriptive period. Written libel has always prescribed in a shorter period than other crimes on the same penal scale—originally two years, then shortened to one year by Republic Act No. 4661. This was done to synchronize the criminal prescription with the one-year prescriptive period for civil actions for defamation under Article 1147 of the Civil Code, and to benefit members of the press.

When Does the One-Year Period Start?

On the reckoning point raised by Causing, the Court reiterated that the one-year period runs from discovery by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, consistent with Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court did not adopt a presumption that a complainant discovered a defamatory post at the moment it was uploaded. Whether and when discovery occurred remains a factual question that must be established with evidence during trial.

Practical Takeaways

• Cyber libel prescribes in one year, counted from discovery by the offended party, authorities, or their agents—not from the date of publication.
• Unsigned resolutions are not binding precedent. They bind only the parties to that case (as res judicata) and cannot be invoked against third persons under the doctrine of stare decisis.
• Only decisions and signed resolutions of the Supreme Court may lay down doctrines that bind the public, because only these are published and show the concurrence of the Justices who voted.
• A heavier penalty does not mean a longer prescriptive period. The Legislature deliberately set a shorter prescription for libel, and the Court will not read an exception into the law that Congress did not make.
• Prescription is a factual defense. A motion to quash based on prescription requires supporting evidence; otherwise, the defense must be raised and proven during trial.

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