Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, July 12) — The Court of Appeals (CA), in upholding the cyber libel conviction of Rappler CEO Maria Ressa and former writer Reynaldo Santos Jr., said a complaint for cyber libel may be filed up to 15 years after the post was published.
This is longer than the controversial 12-year prescription period ruled by the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 46, which was appealed by Ressa — a Nobel prize winner — and Santos.
In legal terms, the prescription of the crime means the perpetrator can no longer be sued after the lapse of a certain period of time.
Businessman Wilfredo Keng, who took Rappler to court over a May 2012 article which reported on his alleged connection to illegal activities, filed the complaint in October 2017.
Under the Revised Penal Code, libel has a prescription period of only one year.
The CA’s Fourth Division noted that the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 — which is silent on the prescription period — increased the penalty of libel by one degree, making the crime punishable with imprisonment of up to eight years, previously from only up to six years.
“Considering the increase of penalty by one degree pursuant to Section 6 of the Cybercrime Law, the penalty for cyberlibel becomes afflictive and shall prescribe in fifteen (15) years, following Articles 2577 and 90 of the Revised Penal Code,” read the 41-page ruling posted on the CA website.
This is different from Manila RTC’s June 2020 decision which said the period is 12 years.
The Manila RTC cited Act 3326, which states that violations penalized by special laws, like the cybercrime law, which do not provide for their own prescription period shall prescribe in 12 years if the offense is punishable by imprisonment of at least six years. This decision sparked a debate among legal experts. It also pushed a lawmaker to file a bill seeking to amend the cybercrime law to clearly state that the crime has a one-year prescription period.
Rappler had also previously argued its article was published months before the cybercrime law was passed, but the prosecution pointed out it was republished on February 19, 2014.
Rappler said the update only involved correction of typographical errors. It added that the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the Supreme Court on the cybercrime law was still in effect when the story was updated, hence, the republication principle should not apply.
But the CA, in affirming the conviction, said the previously issued TRO only prohibited the implementation of the law but did not impact its effectivity.
“As the law remained effective, the lifting of the TRO consequently meant that the acts committed during the effectivity of restraining order was in effect can be subsequently charged and prosecuted,” the CA said. “The offense committed by Ressa and Santos on February 19, 2014 can be lawfully prosecuted under the law as the TRO imposed on the law’s implementation was automatically lifted.”
The Manila RTC sentenced Ressa and Santos to a maximum of six years in jail. However, the CA modified and lengthened the maximum prison time to up to six years, eight months and 20 days. The minimum was set at six months and one day.
The CA decision was written by Associate Justice Roberto Quiroz, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ramon Bato, Jr. and Germano Franscisco Legaspi.
Rappler earlier said Ressa and Santos will avail all legal remedies, including elevating the case to the Supreme Court.
