Respondent Hernandez narrated his recent discovery that on February 4, 2019, and April 29, 2019, petitioner Causing uploaded several posts on Facebook, a social media platform, which made it appear that he stole public funds intended for Marawi siege victims. Hernandez averred that Causing’s Facebook posts in a public profile page maligned and discredited him by portraying him as a thief unworthy of trust and public office.

After a finding of probable cause, the OCP Quezon City filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) two separate Informations both dated May 10, 2021, charging Causing with two counts of Cyber Libel under Section 4(c)(4) ofRepublic Act No. 10175 in relation to Articles 353 and 355 of the Revised Penal Code.

The RTC denied Causing’s Motion to Quash for lack of merit. It refused to apply Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code to determine the prescriptive period of Cyber Libel because it only applies suppletory to special laws such as Republic Act No. 10175. It pointed out that because Cyber Libel is penalized by Republic Act No. 10175, which does not provide a prescriptive period for the said crime, the period must be determined based on Section 1 of Act No. 3326 in relation to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 10175. With these provisions of laws, the RTC concluded that Cyber Libel prescribes in 12 years.

The RTC continued that even if Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code is applied suppletorily, Section 6 of Republic Act No. 10175 increased the penalty for Cyber Libel by one degree than that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code, or to prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, which is considered afflictive under Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code.

Thus, as concluded by the RTC, assuming that the Revised Penal Code may be applied suppletorily to Cyber Libel, paragraph 2, Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code is controlling, which makes Cyber Libel prescribe in 15 years. Because Hernandez filed his Complaint-Affidavit on December 16, 2020, or just a few weeks from his discovery of the purported crimes, the RTC concluded that the two counts of Cyber Libel charged against Causing have not prescribed.

Causing appealed to the Supreme Court, which clarified that the prescriptive period for Cyber Libel is one year from the date of discovery, consistent with traditional libel under the Revised Penal Code. The Court rejected Causing’s motion to quash the informations due to insufficient proof that the offense had already prescribed, highlighting that he can present evidence during trial at theRTC.

The Supreme Court held that under the Revised Penal Code, written libel prescribes in one year. There is no law that excludes cyber libel from this one-year period, and Congress has consistently treated libel as having a shorter period than other crimes, even when penalties are increased.

The Supreme Court reiterated that cyber libel is not a separate crime, but rather libel committed through a computer system. The fact that the Cybercrime Prevention Act imposes a higher penalty for cyber libel does not imply that its prescriptive period should be extended beyond that of traditional libel.

​

BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 93, OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF QUEZON CITY, AND
REPRESENTATIVE FERDINAND LEDESMA HERNANDEZ OF THE SECOND DISTRICT OF SOUTH
COTABATO
G.R. No. 258524
APRIL 8, 2026
J. INTING

Read full text of the Decision: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/search