G.R. No. 256700 - People vs. Soliman

Information filed (Jan. 23, 2018, Quezon City) charging respondent Jomerito S. Soliman with Online Libel under Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. No. 10175 for a series of Facebook remarks against Assistant Secretary Waldo R. Carpio, imputing undue delay and favoritism in releasing Soliman’s sanitary and phytosanitary clearance.
RTC, Branch 90, Quezon City (Decision Aug. 23, 2019) found Soliman guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed a fine of ₱50,000.00 (with subsidiary imprisonment if unpaid), invoking Administrative Circular No. 08-2008 to impose fine only.

Soliman did not appeal and paid the fine.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a certiorari petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 162948), contending the RTC gravely abused its discretion by imposing only a fine instead of the higher penalty of prision correccional to prision mayor mandated by Section 6 of R.A. 10175.
CA Decision (Oct. 30, 2020) and Resolution (May 31, 2021) denied the petition, ruling that:

Error in penalty was one of judgment, not jurisdiction;
Courts retain discretion to impose fine or imprisonment; and
A certiorari petition to increase penalty in a final judgment violates double jeopardy.

Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the People, contesting the CA’s denial and arguing:

Certiorari is the proper remedy to correct an erroneous penalty;
No double jeopardy in challenging an improper penalty; and
Section 6 of R.A. 10175 mandates a penalty one degree higher than under the RPC, i.e., imprisonment.

Whether the CA correctly ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in imposing only a fine for Online Libel.
Whether a Rule 65 certiorari petition to increase the penalty in a final and executory criminal judgment violates the accused’s right against double jeopardy.
Whether Section 6 of R.A. 10175 removes the court’s discretion to impose a fine as an alternative to imprisonment for Online Libel.