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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 256700)

Facts and Criminal Information

Soliman posted a Facebook comment alleging that complainant Carpio unduly delayed release of Soliman’s Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) import clearance and intimating corruption and favoritism. The Information charged Online Libel under Section 4(c)(4) of RA 10175, alleging malicious, false imputations tending to expose Carpio to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.

RTC Proceedings, Conviction, and Penalty Imposed

After trial, the RTC (Branch 90, Quezon City) found Soliman guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Online Libel and imposed a fine of Php50,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment. In imposing a fine only, the RTC invoked SC Administrative Circular No. 08-2008, applying the rule of preference that, under certain circumstances, a fine alone may better serve the interests of justice in libel cases. Soliman did not appeal and paid the fine.

CA Proceedings and Ruling

The People filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals attacking the RTC’s imposition of fine only and arguing that Section 6 of RA 10175 mandates a penalty one degree higher than the RPC — which, the People contended, should have resulted in imprisonment rather than a fine. The CA denied the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA held that (1) an erroneous penalty, if only an error of judgment, is not correctable by certiorari; (2) the statutes and the IRR permit either imprisonment or a fine as alternative penalties, and the IRR itself expressly allows a fine “up to the maximum amount determined by Court”; and (3) increasing the penalty at that stage would impinge on Soliman’s right against double jeopardy, particularly because he did not appeal the RTC decision.

Issue before the Supreme Court

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in imposing only a fine on Soliman for Online Libel, i.e., whether certiorari was the proper remedy to increase the penalty and whether the RTC’s exercise of discretion in imposing a fine only amounted to grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Supreme Court Holding and Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA. The Court held that the prosecution properly resorted to Rule 65 certiorari to allege grave abuse of discretion, but that the People failed to prove grave abuse amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Because no jurisdictional error was shown, the RTC’s sentence of a Php50,000 fine stood and could not be increased without violating Soliman’s right against double jeopardy.

Double Jeopardy Analysis and Rule on Finality of Conviction

The Court reiterated the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy (1987 Constitution, Section 21) and related jurisprudence: generally, once a conviction becomes final and executory (because the period to appeal lapsed, the sentence was satisfied, the accused waived appeal, or the accused applied for probation), the State may not seek to increase the penalty. A narrow exception exists when the judgment is void or the sentence was imposed with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction (e.g., imposition of a legally baseless sentence under a repealed or non-existent law, or deliberate refusal to apply a statutory mandatory penalty). Absent such a jurisdictional defect, an attempt to increase a final penalty violates double jeopardy.

Substantive Analysis — Fine as an Alternative Penalty for Online Libel

The Court analyzed whether Section 6 of RA 10175 eliminated the option to impose a fine only for Online Libel. Section 6 increases the penalty for crimes committed by use of ICT “one (1) degree higher” than the RPC. The Court concluded that (1) the RPC recognizes fines as an alternative penalty and provides mechanisms for increasing/reducing fines by degrees (Article 75); (2) Section 6 therefore contemplates increasing the fine by degrees when a fine is imposed for an ICT-enabled offense; and (3) nothing in RA 10175 or RA 10951 abolished the court’s discretion to impose a fine as alternative to imprisonment. Consequently, imposition of a fine only remains a valid sentencing option for Online Libel when justified by the circumstances.

Computation and Range of Fine for Online Libel

Applying Article 75’s rule (each degree equals one-fourth of the statutory maximum) to the amended Article 355 (RA 10951), the Court computed the fine range for Online Libel as follows: Article 355 (as amended) sets the traditional libel fine range at Php40,000 to Php1,200,000. One degree higher (per RA 10175) increases the maximum by one-fourth of Php1,200,000 (Php300,000), yielding a maximum of Php1,500,000 while keeping the minimum at Php40,000. Thus, the allowed fine range for Online Libel is Php40,000 to Php1,500,000. The RTC’s fine of Php50,000 falls within this statutory range. The Court also gave guidance on reducing the maximum fine by degrees (one degree reduction reduces the maximum by one-fourth, etc.) for future reference.

IRR of RA 10175 and Conflict with Statute; Controlling Rule

The Court noted that the IRR for RA 10175 retained an outdated minimum fine (P6,000) and did not reflect the statutory increase effected by RA 10951, creating variance between the IRR and the statute. The Court held that Section 6 of RA 10175 (the statute) controls over the IRR; implementing rules cannot contravene the law. The Court therefore applied the statutory scheme (RA 10175 together with the amended Article 355 and Article 75 of the RPC) in computing the proper fine range.

Applicability and Role of SC Administrative Circular No. 08-2008

The Court addressed the applicability of Administrative Circular No. 08-2008 (rule of preference favoring fines in libel cases). It held that the Circular remains applicable to Online Libel: it does not supplant RA 10175 nor does it remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty. The Circular expresses judicial policy and guidance that, in certain circumstances (e.g., provocation, heat of passion, first-time offense, exercise of duty), a fine alone may better serve justice. The RTC’s finding that Soliman acted out of anger, deleted the post when admonished, and apologized supported the RTC’s discret

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 256700)

Facts

On or about January 23, 2018, respondent Jomerito S. Soliman posted remarks on his Facebook account accusing Waldo R. Carpio (private complainant, then Assistant Secretary of the Department of Agriculture) of taking favors and unduly delaying the release of Soliman’s Sanitary and Phytosanitary import clearance (SPS permit).
The Facebook post quoted in the Information contained profanity-laden allegations that Carpio delayed documents and engaged in “backdoor activities,” and it was addressed to or copied government officials and media handles.
An Information charging Online Libel under Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012) was filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, Branch 90 (Criminal Case No. R‑QZN‑18‑13974‑CR).
After trial on the merits, the RTC (Acting Presiding Judge Maria Luisa Lesle G. Gonzales‑Betic) found Soliman guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Online Libel and imposed a fine of PHP 50,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of non‑payment.
The RTC invoked Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 08‑2008 ("Guidelines in the Observance of a Rule of Preference in the Imposition of Penalties in Libel Cases") in imposing fine only, noting the court’s discretion to impose fine instead of imprisonment under peculiar circumstances.
Soliman did not appeal the RTC decision and paid the fine, thereby satisfying the sentence.
The Office of the Solicitor General (on behalf of the People) filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) seeking to challenge the RTC’s imposition of fine only as grave abuse of discretion; the CA denied the petition and later denied reconsideration.
The People filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court (En Banc), G.R. No. 256700, assailing the CA Decision dated October 30, 2020 and Resolution dated May 31, 2021.

Procedural History

Information filed in RTC, Quezon City, Branch 90 (Criminal Case No. R‑QZN‑18‑13974‑CR) charging Online Libel under RA 10175.
RTC Decision dated August 23, 2019: conviction of Soliman for Online Libel; penalty: fine PHP 50,000.00 (with subsidiary imprisonment).
Soliman paid the fine and did not appeal; the RTC judgment became final and executory.
People filed Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65) with the CA (CA‑G.R. SP No. 162948) arguing grave abuse of discretion in imposing fine only; CA denied petition in Decision dated October 30, 2020 and denied reconsideration in Resolution dated May 31, 2021.
People brought the case to the Supreme Court by Petition for Review on Certiorari (G.R. No. 256700); the Supreme Court heard the case En Banc and promulgated its Decision on April 25, 2023.

Issue Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in imposing a fine only (PHP 50,000.00) on Soliman for conviction of Online Libel, instead of imposing a penalty increased by one (1) degree over the Revised Penal Code penalty in accordance with Section 6 of RA 10175.

Statutes, Rules and Authorities Invoked in the Case

Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012)
- Section 4(c)(4): defines Online Libel as libel committed through a computer system or any similar means.
- Section 6: provides that crimes defined under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) or special laws, if committed through information and communications technologies, shall be punished one (1) degree higher than that provided by the RPC or special laws.
Revised Penal Code (RPC)
- Article 353: definition of libel.
- Article 355 (as amended by RA 10951): penalty for libel by writings or similar means — prision correccional in minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from PHP 40,000.00 to PHP 1,200,000.00, or both (per RA 10951 adjustments).
- Article 26: recognition that fine may be imposed as alternative penalty.
- Article 75: rules on increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by degrees (each degree equals one‑fourth of the maximum amount prescribed by law; minimum unchanged).
Republic Act No. 10951 (Section 91): amended Article 355 of the RPC; adjusted fines for libel, effective prior to the commission date of the offense (approved August 29, 2017).
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 10175 (issued August 12, 2015)
- Section 5.3 (Libel): prescribes imprisonment (prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period) or a fine ranging from PHP 6,000.00 up to the maximum amount determined by the Court, or both — but the Court noted variance between IRR and Section 6 of RA 10175 as amended by RA 10951.
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 08‑2008 (January 25, 2008): "Guidelines in the Observance of a Rule of Preference in the Imposition of Penalties in Libel Cases"; states preference under certain circumstances for imposing fine instead of imprisonment but does not remove imprisonment as alternative penalty.
Controlling jurisprudence cited: People v. Celorio; De los Angeles v. People; People v. Veneracion; Villareal v. People; People v. Begino; People v. Leones; Tan v. People; De Vera v. De Vera; People v. Court of Appeals; and others as discussed in the ponencia and opinions.

Arguments of the Parties

Petition (People / OSG)
- Contended the RTC gravely abused its discretion by imposing fine only, contrary to Section 6 of RA 10175 which, in their view, mandates a penalty one (1) degree higher than the RPC (meaning imprisonment in higher degree should be imposed).
- Argued that AC 08‑2008 should not apply to online libel because RA 10175 was enacted later and its mandate to increase penalty by one degree prevails.
Respondent (Soliman)
- Argued that the Petition for Certiorari violated his right against double jeopardy.
- Asserted certiorari was an improper remedy to challenge a final RTC decision which had attained finality.
- Contended the RTC acted within discretion and AC 08‑2008 and applicable laws allow courts to impose fine in libel cases; also argued the prosecution’s challenge was an impermissible attempt to increase penalty after finality.

Court of Appeals Ruling (Summarized)

In Decision dated October 30, 2020, the CA denied due course to the certiorari petition.
Held no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC; if the penalty was erroneous, it was an error of judgment, not jurisdiction.
Recognized that both statutes on libel and IRR of RA 10175 allow the court discretion to impose imprisonment or fine; IRR even states fine ranging from PHP 6,000.00 up to the maximum determined by the Court.
Further held the certiorari petition impinged on respondent’s right against double jeopardy because Soliman did not appeal the RTC decision.
Denied the People’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated May 31, 2021.

Supreme Court’s