NATIONAL
Advocates Philippines
SC Upholds One Year Rule On Cyber Libel Cases
FILE
The Supreme Court of the Philippines has drawn a clear line once again—cyber libel cases must be filed within one year from the time the offense is discovered, not from when it was posted online.
In a recent ruling penned by Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the High Court En Banc denied motions for reconsideration filed by both Berteni Cataluña Causing and the Office of the Solicitor General, effectively affirming its earlier decision.
The case traces back to a complaint filed in 2020 by Ferdinand L. Hernandez, who accused Causing of posting allegations on Facebook claiming he pocketed over ₱200 million meant for Marawi relief efforts. Hernandez said he discovered the posts in 2019, but charges were only filed in 2021—triggering a legal debate on whether the case had already prescribed.
Causing argued that the charges should be dismissed, saying more than a year had passed since the posts were made. Meanwhile, the prosecution initially leaned on Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which carries heavier penalties and, according to some interpretations, a longer prescriptive period.
But the Court disagreed with both sides’ key arguments.
The justices emphasized that cyber libel is not a completely separate crime—it is still libel, simply committed through digital platforms. That means it follows the one-year prescriptive period under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.
The Court also shut down the idea that the clock should start ticking from the date of publication. Instead, it ruled that prescription begins when the offended party or authorities actually discover the offense. This is crucial, the Court said, because social media posts are not always immediately visible due to privacy settings, limited access, or algorithm-driven feeds.
At the same time, the SC rejected the government’s argument that cyber libel should have a much longer prescriptive period—up to 15 years—based on an earlier ruling in Tolentino v. People. The Court clarified that the earlier decision, issued as an unsigned resolution, does not set a binding legal doctrine for other cases.
The ruling also came with differing opinions from the bench. Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen suggested that libel involving public officials should even be decriminalized to encourage open public discourse. Meanwhile, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa underscored that libel has historically carried short prescriptive periods.
On the other hand, Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho Jr. disagreed with the majority, arguing that cyber libel should be treated as a separate offense with a longer prescriptive period under the cybercrime law.
For now, though, the Supreme Court’s message is firm and clear: when it comes to cyber libel, the one-year countdown begins not when something is posted—but when it is discovered.
In a recent ruling penned by Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the High Court En Banc denied motions for reconsideration filed by both Berteni Cataluña Causing and the Office of the Solicitor General, effectively affirming its earlier decision.
The case traces back to a complaint filed in 2020 by Ferdinand L. Hernandez, who accused Causing of posting allegations on Facebook claiming he pocketed over ₱200 million meant for Marawi relief efforts. Hernandez said he discovered the posts in 2019, but charges were only filed in 2021—triggering a legal debate on whether the case had already prescribed.
Causing argued that the charges should be dismissed, saying more than a year had passed since the posts were made. Meanwhile, the prosecution initially leaned on Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which carries heavier penalties and, according to some interpretations, a longer prescriptive period.
But the Court disagreed with both sides’ key arguments.
The justices emphasized that cyber libel is not a completely separate crime—it is still libel, simply committed through digital platforms. That means it follows the one-year prescriptive period under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.
The Court also shut down the idea that the clock should start ticking from the date of publication. Instead, it ruled that prescription begins when the offended party or authorities actually discover the offense. This is crucial, the Court said, because social media posts are not always immediately visible due to privacy settings, limited access, or algorithm-driven feeds.
At the same time, the SC rejected the government’s argument that cyber libel should have a much longer prescriptive period—up to 15 years—based on an earlier ruling in Tolentino v. People. The Court clarified that the earlier decision, issued as an unsigned resolution, does not set a binding legal doctrine for other cases.
The ruling also came with differing opinions from the bench. Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen suggested that libel involving public officials should even be decriminalized to encourage open public discourse. Meanwhile, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa underscored that libel has historically carried short prescriptive periods.
On the other hand, Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho Jr. disagreed with the majority, arguing that cyber libel should be treated as a separate offense with a longer prescriptive period under the cybercrime law.
For now, though, the Supreme Court’s message is firm and clear: when it comes to cyber libel, the one-year countdown begins not when something is posted—but when it is discovered.
Apr 21, 2026
We are dedicated storytellers with a passion for bringing your brand to life. Our services range from news and media features to brand promotion and collaborations.
Interested? Visit our
Contact Us page for more information. To learn more about what we offer, check out our latest article on services and opportunities.
