G.R. No. 230299 - Penalosa vs. Ocampo, Jr.

On August 3, 2011, petitioner Jannece C. PeAalosa made a Facebook post insulting respondent Jose A. Ocampo, Jr., imputing to him vices such as brainlessness and cowardice.
On September 25, 2012, the Mandaluyong City Prosecutor’s Office filed an Information for libel under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code.

PeAalosa moved for reconsideration before the City Prosecutor and for deferment/suspension of proceedings in RTC Branch 212, Mandaluyong City; the City Prosecutor denied her motion, and the trial court found probable cause and issued an arrest warrant (June 24, 2014).
The Department of Justice granted PeAalosa’s petition for review, directing withdrawal of the Information (September 16, 2014).
PeAalosa filed a Motion to Quash and the Prosecutor moved to withdraw the Information; the RTC dismissed the case as moot, ruling that “internet libel” was not yet punishable in 2011 (January 26, 2015).
Ocampo, Jr. filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which annulled the RTC order and remanded the case, reasoning that libel by “any similar means” under Article 355 includes Facebook posts and that cyber libel provisions merely affirm online defamation (April 27, 2016; Resolution denying reconsideration November 25, 2016).
PeAalosa elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari; a TRO was issued (July 4, 2018) and later made permanent.

Whether respondent properly availed of a petition for certiorari instead of an appeal to challenge the RTC order granting the motion to withdraw the Information.

Whether respondent, as private offended party, had the legal personality to assail and file the petition for certiorari against the withdrawal of the Information.

Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in granting the Motion to Withdraw Information, including whether an allegedly libelous Facebook post made in 2011 is punishable under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code.