Cyber-libel vs Libel in the Philippines

1. 6/11/2021
1
CYBERLIBEL
Outline
• What is cyber-libel?
• Public Officials/Public Figure
• Customer Complaints
• Penalty
• Venue
• Sample
• Freedom of Expression vs Libel
Cyber-Libel (Definition)
• Definition: “It is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a
vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition,
status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or
contempt a person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
Such acts are committed through a computer system.”
• Legal Basis: “Cyber-crime Prevention Act of 2012”
• What is “cyber”?
Is it a new law?
• In relation to the Revised Penal Code
1 2
3 4

2. 6/11/2021
2
How to do you know if a statement is
libelous?
• Element of Libel
• a. There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
condition, status, or circumstance.
• b. The imputation must be made publicly, which requires that at least one other person must have seen the
libelous post, in addition to the author and the person defamed or alluded to in the post.
• c. The imputation must be malicious, which means that the author of the libelous post made such post with
knowledge that it was false, or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity thereof. (Yunchengco vs. The
Manila Chronicle Publishing Corporation, G.R. No. 184315, 25 November 2009.)
• d. The imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead, which requires that
the post must identify the person defamed, or at the very least, the person defamed is identifiable by a third
person.
• e. The imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person defamed. (Reyes,
Luis B., Revised Penal Code, Fifteenth Edition, 2001, page 932.)
• f. The imputation was done through the use of a computer system or any other similar means which may be
devised in the future. (Sec. 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175)
Who are public figures?
• Ayer: “A public figure has been defined as a person who, by his
accomplishments, fame, or mode of living, or by adopting a profession or
calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in his doings, his
affairs, and his character, has become a 'public personage.' He is, in other
words, a celebrity. Obviously to be included in this category are those who
have achieved some degree of reputation by appearing before the public,
as in the case of an actor, a professional baseball player, a pugilist, or any
other entertainer. The list is, however, broader than this. It includes public
officers, famous inventors and explorers, war heroes and even ordinary
soldiers, an infant prodigy, and no less a personage than the Grand Exalted
Ruler of a lodge. It includes, in short, anyone who has arrived at a
position where public attention is focused upon him as a person.”
Actual Malice Test
• In convicting the defendants, the lower courts paid particular heed to
Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that "every
defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no
good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown…". We hold
that this provision, as applied to public figures complaining of criminal libel,
must be construed in light of the constitutional guarantee of free
expression, and this Court’s precedents upholding the standard of actual
malice with the necessary implication that a statement regarding a public
figure if true is not libelous. The provision itself allows for such leeway,
accepting as a defense "good intention and justifiable motive." The
exercise of free expression, and its concordant assurance of commentary
on public affairs and public figures, certainly qualify as "justifiable motive,"
if not "good intention.“
(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_128959_2005.html#fnt7
2)
Truth is not a defense
• Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code provides that "every
defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true,
if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown…".
5 6
7 8

3. 6/11/2021
3
Publicity
• Email
• Blind-item
• Disclosure to Third (3rd) Persons
Freedom of Expression
• Libel is not protected speech
Penalty
• Since the crime of traditional libel is punished under the Revised Penal Code, and
under the cyber crime prevention act, if the crime is cyber libel, “the penalty to
be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised
Penal Code, as amended”, the penalty imposed would be Prision Correccional in
its maximum period to Prision Mayor in its minimum period.
• Prision Correccional in its maximum period involve imprisonment from 4 years, 2
months and 1 day to 6 years.
• On the other hand, Prision Mayor in its minimum period involve imprisonment 6
years and 1 day to 8 years.
• Thus, the penalty for cyber libel, based on the penalty under the Revised Penal
Code for traditional libel, and computed under Section 6 of the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012, which increased the penalty by one (1) degree higher, is
2 year, 4 months and 1 day to 8 years.
VENUE (WHERE TO FILE)
• https://cicc.gov.ph/filing-a-complaint/submit-a-cyber-complaint/
• NBI
• PNP
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
9 10
11 12