Causing v. People (2023): Cyber Libel Prescribes in One Year

In December 2020, Representative Ferdinand Hernandez of the Second District of South Cotabato filed a complaint for cyber libel against lawyer Berteni Causing with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. He said he had recently discovered Facebook posts about relief funds for victims of the Marawi siege that Causing uploaded on February 4 and April 29, 2019, and that the posts defamed him. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the posts were libelous.

The prosecutor found probable cause, and two informations for cyber libel under Section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act, in relation to Articles 353 and 355 of the Revised Penal Code, were filed in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.

Causing asked the court to quash the informations because the crimes had prescribed. He argued that libel prescribes in one year from publication, and the complaint came more than a year after the posts. He also argued that Tolentino v. People, which had held that cyber libel prescribes in 15 years, was not binding because it was an unsigned resolution.

The trial court denied the motion. It said the period was 12 years under Act No. 3326, the law on prescription for special laws. Even under the Revised Penal Code, it said, the period would be 15 years, because the higher penalty for cyber libel is afflictive. It added that Hernandez filed his complaint just a few weeks after discovering the posts. Causing went directly to the Supreme Court.

The Court framed three issues:

1. Should the petition be dismissed for being the wrong remedy and for skipping the lower courts?
2. Does the Revised Penal Code or Act No. 3326 decide when cyber libel prescribes?
3. Had the two counts of cyber libel against Causing prescribed?

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the trial court's orders, but it corrected the trial court's reading of the law.

• The Court took the case. A petition for certiorari is usually not the remedy against the denial of a motion to quash. The Court made an exception because the issues were purely legal and asked it to revisit its own precedent. It also said that Tolentino, though an unsigned resolution, was a binding precedent, so only the Supreme Court could overturn it.
• Cyber libel is libel under the Revised Penal Code. Relying on Disini v. Secretary of Justice, the Court said the Cybercrime Prevention Act did not create a new crime. It treats a computer system as another means of publishing libel and raises the penalty by one degree. So the Code's rules on prescription apply, not Act No. 3326.
• One year, not 15. Article 90 has a specific rule for libel, and that rule controls over the general rule for crimes with afflictive penalties. The Court said: "The Court agrees with Causing and abandons the Tolentino doctrine on the prescriptive period of Cyber Libel."
• Counted from discovery. Under Article 91 of the Code, the period starts when the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. The date of publication counts only when it is also the date of discovery.

Article 90, as amended by Republic Act No. 4661, states the period:

The Court still ruled against Causing on his motion. It said that "prescription is a matter of defense that requires the presentation of evidence". The informations did not state when Hernandez discovered the posts, and Causing attached no evidence to his motion to quash. So the trial court could not assume that discovery happened on the dates of posting. Causing may still try to prove at the trial that the crimes have prescribed. The Supreme Court made no conclusion on that question. It told the trial court to compute the period as one year from discovery.

The Court also noted that a longer period for cyber libel is for Congress, not the Court, to provide.

Cyber libel, being libel under Articles 353 and 355 of the Revised Penal Code committed through a computer system, prescribes in one year under Article 90, counted under Article 91 from discovery by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. This abandons the 15-year period of Tolentino v. People. Prescription is a defense the accused must prove, unless it appears on the face of the information.

Before Causing, the ruling in Tolentino meant that cyber libel prescribed in 15 years. After Causing, the period is one year from discovery of the post. This makes cyber libel follow the same period as libel in print.

Two points limit the ruling:

• Discovery, not posting. A post from years ago can still be the subject of a case if the offended party discovered it only recently. Proof of when the post was discovered matters.
• A Division ruling. Causing was decided by the Third Division and abandons an earlier ruling. We did not check whether the full Court later revisited the point.

Made-up illustration: Liza sees a Facebook post calling her a thief on January 5, 2025, the first time she learns of it. If she files a complaint only in March 2026, more than a year after she discovered it, the person who posted may raise prescription as a defense, and must prove it with evidence. If she had discovered the same post only in December 2025, the year would run from that later date.