Title
Berteni Causing vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 258524
Decision Date
Oct 11, 2023
Petitioner challenged RTC's denial of Motion to Quash cyber libel charges; SC ruled cyber libel prescribes in one year from discovery under RPC art 90(4); RTC denial affirmed; prescription is factual matter for trial.
cyber libel
criminal law
prescription
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 258524)

Procedural history and motions

Representative Hernandez filed a Complaint‑Affidavit alleging that Causing posted Facebook material on February 4, 2019 and April 29, 2019 that imputed theft and plunder of P225 million. After a finding of probable cause, the Office of the City Prosecutor filed two separate Informations (May 10, 2021) charging two counts of Cyber Libel (Criminal Cases R‑QZN‑21‑04099 and R‑QZN‑21‑04100). Causing moved to quash the Informations on prescription grounds (June 28, 2021) and later filed a motion for reconsideration after the RTC denied the motion to quash. He subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Substance of the Informations (elements alleged)

Each Information alleged that Causing, through a computer system (Facebook posts/public group), willfully and publicly imputed that Congressman Hernandez participated in theft/overpricing of relief goods (Php225 million), thereby imputing a vice or defect and exposing him to public contempt and disgrace — conduct framed as libel under Article 355 read with Article 353 and as Cyber Libel under Section 4(c)(4) of RA 10175.

Motion to Quash: petitioner's argument on prescription

Causing argued that Section 4(c)(4) of RA 10175 did not create a new crime but only recognized publication by computer systems as a means of committing libel under Articles 353 and 355, and that Article 90(4) of the RPC prescribes libel in one year (counted from publication). Because the Complaint‑Affidavit was filed December 16, 2020, more than one year after the cited postings, Causing asserted the charges had prescribed. He contested reliance on Tolentino (which held a 15‑year prescriptive period) as non‑binding because that resolution was unsigned.

RTC rulings and reasoning

The RTC denied the Motion to Quash (Oct. 5, 2021) and denied reconsideration (Nov. 15, 2021). The RTC concluded that RA 10175 penalized Cyber Libel as an offense under the special law; because RA 10175 lacked its own prescriptive period and Section 6 increased the penalty by one degree (making the penalty afflictive), the RTC applied Section 1 of Act No. 3326 (giving 12 years) in relation to Section 6, or, suppletorily applying Article 90(2) of the RPC (afflictive penalties) would yield 15 years as in Tolentino. The RTC therefore found the charges not time‑barred.

Issues presented to the Supreme Court

(1) Whether certiorari was an improper remedy and the petition should be dismissed for bypassing appellate hierarchy; (2) whether Act No. 3326 or Article 90 of the RPC governs prescription for Cyber Libel; (3) whether the charged Cyber Libel counts against Causing had prescribed.

Supreme Court disposition and threshold procedural ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit but addressed the substantive statutory questions raised. The Court accepted the petition despite the usual hierarchy rule because (a) the issues were purely legal (statutory interpretation of prescriptive rules), (b) the case presented the need to clarify or revisit Tolentino for bench and bar guidance, and (c) direct resolution by the Court was justified under recognized exceptions to hierarchy.

Core holding on the legal character of Cyber Libel

The Court held that Section 4(c)(4) of RA 10175 did not create a new crime; it implements and recognizes Article 355 (in relation to Article 353) of the RPC when libel is committed through a computer system. Cyber Libel and ordinary libel are the same offense in substance, with RA 10175 identifying ICT as a means of publication and providing a qualifying circumstance by increasing the penalty by one degree.

Which prescriptive rule applies: RPC Articles 90 and 91 prevail over Act No. 3326

Because Cyber Libel is essentially libel as defined by the RPC, the RPC’s prescriptive provisions (Articles 90 and 91) govern. Act No. 3326 applies only when an offense is defined and penalized exclusively by a special law that lacks its own prescriptive rule. Even if Act No. 3326 were considered, the settled rule is that when multiple statutes could apply, the prescriptive rule most favorable to the accused (i.e., the shorter period) must be adopted.

Interpretation of Article 90: paragraph 4 controls — one‑year prescription

The Court concluded paragraph 4 of Article 90 (“The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.”) is the controlling provision for both libel and Cyber Libel. The analysis relied on textual reading, the principle that specific statutory provisions prevail over general ones (generalia specialibus non derogant), the legislative history (RA 4661 having reduced libel’s prescription to one year to harmonize with civil defamation), and the rule that prescription provisions are construed in favor of the accused. Consequently, Tolentino’s adoption of paragraph 2 (15 years) was abandoned.

Computation of the one‑year period: Article 91 — discovery rule

Under Article 91 of the RPC, the prescriptive period begins to run from the day the crime is discovered by the offended party, authorities, or their agents, and is interrupted by fili

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms