Case Summary (G.R. No. 187417)
Contents of the Cyber Libel Charges
– R-QZN-21-04099: February 4, 2019 post allegedly imputing that Hernandez stole relief funds, shared via personal and public Facebook accounts.
– R-QZN-21-04100: April 29, 2019 repost accusing Hernandez and others of overpricing goods and pocketing money.
Both accused Causing of maliciously imputing a crime, bringing scandal and disgrace to the offended party.
RTC Proceedings and Denials of Motions
On June 28, 2021, Causing moved to quash the informations, arguing that cyber libel prescribes in one year under RPC Art. 90(4), and that RA 10175 merely elevated the mode of publication without creating a new crime. The RTC denied the Motion to Quash (Oct. 5, 2021) and the Motion for Reconsideration (Nov. 15, 2021), applying Act 3326 and RPC Art. 90(2) to determine a 12-year or 15-year prescriptive period, and setting arraignment for November 24, 2021.
Petition for Certiorari and Principal Arguments
Causing sought certiorari relief from the RTC orders, contending that:
- He raised pure questions of law on prescription, warranting direct Supreme Court review.
- Cyber libel is the same crime as libel under RPC Arts. 353/355 and thus prescribes in one year (RPC Art. 90(4)), not 12 or 15 years.
- Tolentino v. People (R-G.R. No. 240310) is not binding as an unsigned resolution.
Respondents’ Position
The Solicitor General argued that:
– Certiorari was an improper remedy from the denial of a quashal motion; the remedy was to plead and proceed to trial.
– The RTC correctly applied Act 3326 and RPC Art. 90(2) consistent with Tolentino, which is binding under Eizmendi v. Fernandez.
Congressman Hernandez waived comment.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
I. Proper remedy and direct resort to the Supreme Court.
II. Applicable law on prescription of cyber libel—RPC Arts. 90/91 vs. Act 3326.
III. Whether the charges have prescribed.
Procedural Relief and Exception to Hierarchy (Issue I)
While certiorari is generally not available from a quashal denial, the Court recognized exceptions for purely legal questions and to resolve conflicts in bench and bar practice. Because the petition involves only statutory interpretation on prescription, and because only the Supreme Court may overrule its own precedent, the Court entertained the petition on the merits.
Nature of Cyber Libel as an RPC Offense (Issue II.A)
The Court confirmed that RA 10175 Sec. 4(c)(4) did not create a new crime but adopted RPC Art. 355’s libel offense “committed through a computer system.” RA 10175 merely designates digital publication as a qualifying circumstance and increases the penalty by one degree (Sec. 6), consistent with Disini v. Sec’y of Justice.
Governing Prescription Rule (Issue II.B)
Because cyber libel remains a libel felony under the RPC, its prescriptive period is governed by RPC Arts. 90 and 91. Act 3326 applies only to special-law offenses without a prescriptive period. Even if Act 3326 were argued to apply, the rule is to adopt the shortest period most favorable to the accused.
Prescription Period Is One Year (Issue II.C)
– RPC Art. 90(4) specifically provides that “the crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.”
– This specific rule for libel prevails over the general 15-year prescription for afflictive penalties (Art. 90(2)) under the principle generalia specialibus non derogant.
– Legislative history (RA 4661, 1966) reflects intent to align criminal libel’s one-year prescription with the one-year civil defamation rule.
Computation of Prescription from Discovery (Issue II.D)
Under RPC Art. 91, the one-year period runs from the day the offended party, authorities, or their agents discover the crime,
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 187417)
Parties and Procedural Context
- Petitioner: Berteni CataluAa Causing
- Respondents:
• People of the Philippines
• Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 93
• Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City
• Representative Ferdinand L. Hernandez (Second District, South Cotabato) - Relief Sought: Writ of Certiorari under Rule 65 to annul the RTC Orders dated October 5, 2021 and November 15, 2021 in Criminal Cases R-QZN-21-04099 and R-QZN-21-04100 (Cyber Libel)
Antecedent Facts
- December 16, 2020: Hernandez filed a Complaint-Affidavit for Cyber Libel (RA 10175 §4(c)(4), in relation to RPC Arts. 353 & 355), alleging Causing’s Facebook posts (Feb 4 & Apr 29, 2019) imputed theft of P225 million from Marawi relief funds
- Causing filed Counter-Affidavit; Hernandez filed Reply-Affidavit
- OCP Quezon City found probable cause and on May 10, 2021 filed two separate Informations for Cyber Libel with the RTC
Informations for Cyber Libel
- Case No. R-QZN-21-04099 (Feb 4, 2019 post): Alleged video repost accusing Hernandez of plunder and theft of P226 million, posted on personal and public group Facebook accounts
- Case No. R-QZN-21-04100 (Apr 29, 2019 post): Alleged repost accusing Hernandez and others of overpricing relief goods and stealing P225 million
- Both charges: Violation of RA 10175 §4(c)(4) in relation to RPC Arts. 353 & 355
Motion to Quash and RTC’s Disposition
- June 28, 2021: Causing moved to quash for prescription, arguing Cyber Libel prescribes in one year (RPC Art. 90(4)), RA 10175 did not create a new crime, and Tolentino v. People (unsigned) is not binding
- October 5, 2021 RTC Order: Denied Motion to Quash—held Cyber Libel penalized by special law (RA 10175) without its own prescriptive period; applied Act No. 3326 => 12 years or, alternatively, RPC Art. 90(2) => 15 years