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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 256700)

Factual Background

Respondent posted on Facebook statements accusing private complainant Waldo R. Carpio, then Assistant Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, of taking favors and unduly delaying respondent’s Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) import clearance, thereby impugning complainant’s integrity and exposing him to public contempt. The post was published on January 23, 2018 in Quezon City. After official admonition by the Secretary of Agriculture, respondent deleted the post and repeatedly apologized to complainant.

Trial Court Proceedings

The prosecution filed an Information charging respondent with Online Libel under Section 4(c)(4) of RA 10175. After trial, the RTC found respondent guilty beyond reasonable doubt and, by Decision dated August 23, 2019, imposed a fine of P50,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of nonpayment. In imposing the fine‑only penalty, the RTC invoked Administrative Circular No. 08‑2008, applying the rule of preference in certain libel cases and emphasizing the trial court’s discretion to impose a fine instead of imprisonment depending on the circumstances. Respondent did not appeal and satisfied the penalty by paying the fine.

Proceedings in the Court of Appeals

The People of the Philippines filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, alleging that the RTC gravely abused its discretion by imposing only a fine contrary to Section 6 of RA 10175, which mandates that penalties for crimes committed through information and communications technologies be imposed one degree higher than those under the Revised Penal Code. The CA, in its Decision dated October 30, 2020, denied the petition for certiorari. The CA held that any error in the penalty was one of judgment and not of jurisdiction, that both statutes and the IRR of RA 10175 preserve the court’s discretion to impose a fine as an alternative penalty, and that granting the petition would impinge on respondent’s right against double jeopardy. The CA denied reconsideration in its May 31, 2021 Resolution.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The sole issue before the Supreme Court was whether the CA correctly ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it sentenced respondent to a fine only for the crime of Online Libel.

Disposition of the Supreme Court

The petition for review on certiorari was denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA Decision dated October 30, 2020 and its May 31, 2021 Resolution.

Double Jeopardy Analysis

The Court reiterated that an appeal by the prosecution seeking to increase a penalty ordinarily places the accused in double jeopardy, as held in People v. Celorio. The Court explained the limited exception that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be used to attack a final judgment when the challenged court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, because issuance of the writ vacates the prior judgment. The Court held that where no grave abuse of discretion is shown, attempting to increase a valid and final penalty would violate the accused’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Applying those principles, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC; therefore, increasing the penalty would have violated double jeopardy.

Substantive Rule on Fine as an Alternative Penalty for Online Libel

The Court resolved the substantive question whether a court may impose a fine only for a conviction of Online Libel under Section 4(c)(4) of RA 10175. The Court held that Section 6 of RA 10175, which prescribes a penalty one degree higher than that provided under the Revised Penal Code when crimes are committed through information and communications technologies, does not eliminate the alternative character of imprisonment and fine. The Court relied on Articles 26 and 75 and Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code to conclude that fines remain an available alternative and that fines may be increased or reduced by degrees under Article 75.

Computation and Range of the Penalty of Fine for Online Libel

The Court applied Article 75’s rule that increasing or reducing a penalty by one degree equals one‑fourth of the maximum amount prescribed by law. Article 355 as amended by RA 10951 fixed the fine for traditional libel at a range of P40,000.00 to P1,200,000.00. One degree higher therefore increases the maximum by one‑fourth of P1,200,000.00 (P300,000.00), yielding a maximum of P1,500,000.00 for Online Libel while leaving the minimum unchanged at P40,000.00. The Court thus established the fine range for Online Libel as P40,000.00 to P1,500,000.00 and confirmed that the RTC’s imposition of P50,000.00 fell within that statutory range.

Conflict Between the IRR and the Statute; Precedence of Law

The Court noted that the IRR of RA 10175 contained a divergent fine range (P6,000.00 up to the maximum determined by the court). The Court held that where the IRR conflicts with an explicit statutory provision, the statute controls, because an IRR cannot go beyond or contravene the law it implements. Consequently, Section 6 of RA 10175 and the amended Article 355 by RA 10951 govern the correct penalty computation for Online Libel.

Applicability of Administrative Circular No. 08‑2008

The Court ruled that Administrative Circular No. 08‑2008 remains applicable insofar as it expresses a judicial policy favoring fines in certain libel cases and does not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty. The Circular does not supplant statutory law but guides courts to exercise sound discretion in imposing fines where the circumstances justify a fine rather than imprisonment. The Supreme Court found that the facts of this case—respondent’s anger and perceived provocation, immediate deletion of the post, and subsequent apologies—fell within the types of circumstances in which the Circular justified imposing a fine only.

Guidelines for Reducing Penalties by Degrees

For guidance of the Bench and the Bar, the Court explained that reductions of the fine by one or more degrees must follow Article 75’s arithmetic. For Online Libel, one‑degree reduction lowers the maximum from P1,500,000.00 by P375,000.00 to P1,125,000.00; two degrees lower the maximum further to P750,000.00, while the minimum remains P40,000.00.

Concurring and Separate Opinions

Chief Justice Gesmundo filed a concurring o

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 256700)

Parties and Posture

People of the Philippines filed the petition for review on certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals' denial of a Rule 65 petition to increase the penalty imposed on Jomerito S. Soliman.
Jomerito S. Soliman was the accused and later the convicted respondent for Online Libel under Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175.
The challenged decisions below are the RTC Decision dated August 23, 2019, the CA Decision dated October 30, 2020, and the CA Resolution dated May 31, 2021.
The sole question before the Supreme Court en banc was whether the CA correctly ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in imposing a fine only.

Key Facts

On January 23, 2018, respondent published defamatory remarks on Facebook alleging that private complainant Waldo R. Carpio unduly delayed and favored in the release of an SPS permit.
Respondent deleted the Facebook post after the Department of Agriculture Secretary called his attention, and respondent apologized to Carpio several times.
The Information charged respondent with Online Libel under Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175 based on the Facebook post.

Procedural History

The RTC, Branch 90, Quezon City, convicted respondent of Online Libel on August 23, 2019 and imposed a fine of P50,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of nonpayment.
The RTC invoked SC Administrative Circular No. 08-2008 in imposing the fine-only penalty.
Respondent did not appeal and paid the fine, after which the Office of the Solicitor General filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals.
The CA denied the Rule 65 petition on October 30, 2020 and denied reconsideration on May 31, 2021, after which the People filed the present petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Issue

The sole issue is whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in imposing a fine only instead of a penalty one degree higher than that provided in the Revised Penal Code pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. 10175.

Ruling and Disposition

The petition was denied and the CA Decision dated October 30, 2020 and Resolution dated May 31, 2021 were affirmed.
The Supreme Court held that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in sentencing respondent to pay a fine of P50,000.00 for Online Libel.

Reasoning

The Court first found that certiorari under Rule 65, Rules of Court is the proper remedy to assail a final judgment only when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The Court ruled that an error in the imposition of penalty that is an error of judgment does not constitute grave abuse of discretion subject to certiorari review.
The Court held that the RTC exercised lawful discretion in imposing a fine only because both the RPC and R.A. 10175 preserve the alternative character of imprisonment and fine.
The Court concluded that respondent's P50,000.00 fine was within the lawful range for Online Libel as determined under the statutes and precedent.

Double Jeopardy

The Court explained that increasing a punishment after a final and executory conviction ordinarily violates the right against double jeopardy under the Constitution.
The Court reiterated that a Rule 65 petition does not offend double jeopardy if it demonstrates grave abuse of di