CYBERLIBEL penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that
provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws,
RELEVANT PROVISIONS ON LIBEL
Revised Penal Code
Article 353. Definition of libel. - A libel is public and malicious
imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any
act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to
blacken the memory of one who is dead.
Article 354. Requirement for publicity. - Every defamatory imputation
is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and
justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases:
1. A private communication made by any person to another
in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any
comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other
official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or
of any statement, report or speech delivered in said
proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers
in the exercise of their functions.
Article 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. - A libel
committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving,
radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic
exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging
from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which
may be brought by the offended party.
R.A. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012)
Section 4. Cybercrime Offenses. — The following acts constitute the
offense of cybercrime punishable under this Act:
xxx
(c) Content-related Offenses:
xxx
(4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as
defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, committed through a computer system or any
other similar means which may be devised in the future.
Section 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with
the use of information and communications technologies shall be
covered by the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the
as the case may be.
Cyberlibel is actually not a new crime since Art. 353 in relation to Art. 355 of the RPC
already punishes it. In effect Sec. 4(c)4 of R.A. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of
2012 merely affirms that online defamation constitutes “similar means” for committing
libel. This has been the pronouncement in Disini vs. Secretary of Justice. (G.R No. 203335,
11 February 2014).
When committed through information and communication technologies or through a
computer system, libel becomes cyberlibel, which carries with it a higher penalty by one
degree under Section 6 above.
Sec. 4(c)(4) which penalizes online libel has been declared by the Supreme Court in
Disini as valid and constitutional with respect to the original author of the post but void
and unconstitutional with respect to others who simply receive the post and react to it.
ELEMENTS OF LIBEL
A. There must be a defamatory imputation.
This means that there must be an allegation of a discreditable act or condition
concerning another.
The matter claimed to be libelous must impute a crime, vice, defect, or any act, or
omission, condition, status or circumstance, tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or
contempt to a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
(Article 353, Revised Penal Code)
In determining whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are to be construed in
their entirety and should be taken in their plain, natural, and ordinary meaning as they
would naturally be understood by the persons reading them, unless it appears that they
were used and understood in another sense (Novicio v. Aggabao, G.R. No. 141332, 11
December 2003). Moreover, "[a] charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce
the hearers to suppose and understand that the person or persons against whom they
were uttered were guilty of certain offenses or are sufficient to impeach the honesty,
virtue or reputation or to hold the person or persons up to public ridicule.” (Lopez v.
People, G.R. No. 172203, 14 February 2011)
In Mr. Eric Allison Scott’s case, his Facebook post detailed how a certain “Olivia the GM”
and “management” ignored his concern about how the windows of the units in Serendra
open to a certain extent where a child could fit in and fall out from the gap. A news he
received from a friend that a 4-year-old had fallen from his death from the 42nd floor last
year prompted him to demand from the “management” to fix the windows. According to
him, the “management” would do nothing. He was told to file a complaint and was
allegedly threatened with fines. A similar incident unfortunately happened where a boy
fell from the 39th floor landing on the glass lobby 38 stories below. At this point in his
Facebook post, Mr. Allison stated the manner by which Serendra tried to contain the
news from spreading. He said, “Sadly last Saturday another boy fell from the 39floor
landing on the glass lobby 38 stories below. Serendra informed all staff and guards to say
nothing. Tried to take pictures away so no media.”
In their ordinary sense, the words used cast aspersion upon the integrity and reputation
of “Olivia the GM,” “management,” and Serendra. The words convey that “Olivia the GM”
and “management” were neglectful and were in utter disregard of their duty. On the part
of Serendra, the discreditable act of concealing the death of a boy within their premises
was imputed to it.
B. The defamatory imputation must be made publicly.
The element of publication is satisfied when, after writing the defamatory matter, the
same is made known to someone other than the person to whom it is being pertained to.
(Magno v. People, G.R. No. 133896, 27 January 2006)
It is not necessary that the person defamed is named. If the totality of the publication
makes it possible to determine who the defamed person is, then this element is also
satisfied. This means that the accused caused the libelous material to be known or read
or seen or heard by a third person, other than the person to whom it has been written i.e.
the victim.
For cyber libel in particular, the publication requirement is satisfied when the allegation
is made publicly through the use of information and communication technologies. The
Supreme Court recently held in Fortun v. Quinsayas (G.R. No. 194578, 13 February 2013)
that online posting is publication. Hence, posting made in social media networks such as
Facebook and Twitter constitutes publication for purposes of libel.
C. The person defamed must be identified.
In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable although it is
not necessary that he be named. It must be shown that at least a third person could
identify him as the object of the libelous publication. (Borjal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
126466, 14 January 1999)
The libelous Facebook post categorically referred to Serendra. Hence, Serendra, as the
person defamed, is not only identifiable but is actually named.
With respect to “Olivia the GM” and “management,” the requirement is complied with
where a third person recognized or could identify them as the party/ies vilified in the
article.
D. The defamatory imputation must be malicious.
There is "actual malice" or malice in fact when the offender makes the defamatory
statement with the knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was
false or not. (Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation vs. Domingo and People, 5 July 2017)
Malice is a term used to indicate the fact that the offender is prompted by personal ill-
will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the
person defamed. It exists when the offender makes the defamatory statement with
knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
A presumption of malice is created by law in every defamatory statement even if the
statement is true. In effect, the prosecution need not prove malice on the part of the
defendant. The burden rests on the defendant to show good intention and justifiable
motive in order to overcome the legal inference of malice. However, malice can be
negated by one’s sense of justice or other legitimate or plausible motive.
Under Article 354 of the RPC, malice is presumed and the test is the character of the
words used. The meaning of the writer or author is likewise immaterial.
CORPORATIONS MAY SUE FOR LIBEL AND DEMAND MORAL DAMAGES
FOR BESMIRCHED REPUTATION
As a rule, corporations cannot sue for libel and demand moral damages
since they do not have feelings and mental state. They may not even claim
moral damages for besmirched reputation. Mental suffering can be
experienced only by one having a nervous system and it flows from real
ills, sorrows, and griefs of life – all of which cannot be suffered by an
artificial person. (National Power Corporation v. Philipp Brothers Oceanic,
Inc., G.R. No. 126204, 20 November 2001)
A juridical person is generally not entitled to moral damages because, unlike a natural
person, it cannot experience physical suffering or such sentiments as wounded feelings,
serious anxiety, mental anguish or moral shock. The Court of Appeals cites Mambulao
Lumber Co. v. PNB, et al. to justify the award of moral damages. However, the Court’s
statement in Mambulao that "a corporation may have a good reputation which, if
besmirched, may also be a ground for the award of moral damages" is an obiter dictum.
Nevertheless, AMEC’s claim for moral damages falls under item 7 of Article 2219 of the
Civil Code. This provision expressly authorizes the recovery of moral damages in cases of
libel, slander or any other form of defamation. Article 2219(7) does not qualify whether
the plaintiff is a natural or juridical person. Therefore, a juridical person such as a
corporation can validly complain for libel or any other form of defamation and claim
for moral damages. (Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Ago Medical and Educational
Center, G.R. No. 141994, 17 January 2005)
PERSON/S LIABLE
Only the original author of the post is liable. Reacting, commenting or sharing the post
will not result in criminal liability since these are “are essentially knee-jerk sentiments of
readers who may think little or haphazardly of their response to the original posting.”
This has been decided by the SC in Disini v. Secretary of Justice. The SC also considered
the inherent impossibility of joining hundreds or thousands of responding “friends” or
“followers” in the criminal charge to be filed in court.
“Except for the original author of the assailed statement, the rest (those who pressed
Like, Comment and Share) are essentially knee-jerk sentiments of readers who may
think little or haphazardly of their response to the original posting. Will they be liable
for aiding or abetting? And, considering the inherent impossibility of joining hundreds or
thousands of responding "Friends" or "Followers" in the criminal charge to be filed in
court, who will make a choice as to who should go to jail for the outbreak of the
challenged posting?” (Disini v. Secretary of Justice)
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
In cyber libel cases, venue is the actual residence of the offended party at the time when
the offense was committed and not the place where he gained access to the libelous
article published over the Internet.
In Bonifacio v. RTC Makati City (GR No. 184800, 5 May 2010), the SC said if it allows cyber
libel to be filed where the article is first accessed, the author of the defamatory article
may be sued anywhere in the Philippines. The private complainant can just allege that he
accessed the defamatory online article in a far-flung place. For instance, a blogger in
Manila who posts a defamatory article may then be sued in Ilocos Sur, where the
offended party allegedly first accessed the article. To prevent this chaotic situation, the
High Court effectively limited the venue to the place where the complainant actually
resides at the time of the commission of the offense.
***
I wrote a letter to Olivia the GM I begged her to fix this. Maybe cost is 250,000
peso only use a small tool and adjust the windows. The next death is on you! You
are accountable..How can you do nothing?
You don’t even send a memo warning other parents. There are 100’s of small kids
in Serendra one and two. Why? What is wrong with you??
I was ignored! Then threaten with many fines..
Sadly last Saturday another boy fell from the 39floor landing on the glass lobby
38 stories below.
Serendra informed all staff and guards to say nothing. Tried to take pictures away
so no media.
Imagine another family destroyed another babe lost and mommy and daddy
forever heart broken.
How many more kids must die? It’s a simple fix yet Ayala is so very arrogant.
Olivia may god forgive you! You have a duty to protect the residents. A babe
falling to it’s death! My god!
How many other buildings in Metro with same issue?
I beg one person reading this don’t ignore txt or call someone who can make
change and do something all it takes is one person in this country with the power
influence to make a change. You will save the next babe.
I beg you from my heart please if you know the right government official or
lawyer or media personailty.
Be the one who cares and makes a difference. Expose this horrible act of
arrogance hold those accountable and please lets fix this problem TODAY!!!! Pray
for the babies lost and their families!

Mr. Eric Scott Allison’s Facebook post on 22 July 2010:

“Adults only topic: First let me say sorry to share such a tragic issue.

I do so with one agenda. Praying that one of you reading this has the power to do
somethings positive. Im offering 100,000 to a charity of your choice should you
help hold Olivia the Property Manager and Ayala accountable.

I prayed hard about this:

I’ve lived with my kids in Serendra BGC the past 6 six years. A place that is
considered safe and family friendly. In the heart of BGC. Owned and ran by Ayala
Corp.
3 years ago when we moved to one of the new buildings on the 43 rd floor. Soon
after I realized the windows opened from 9 to 14 inches depending on the
window. As a parent of 6 small kids I immediately was concerned. Nightmares
came to me. I then went to management to share my concern. I was ignored. Last
year while in Boracay a friend also living in Serendra sent me news that a 4 year
old had fallen to his death from the 42nd floor. My night was real:(

I went back to management “shame on you see I told you” I warned you!!! A babe
is gone parents heart broken. You must fix the windows as I tied all my windows
shut so my kids couldn’t open. As you would do nothing!!
“I was told file complaint its okay we have big legal reserve and our lawyer is
available.