Cyber Libel: Can You Be Sued for a Facebook Post?

It is libel committed online. Section 4(c)(4) of RA 10175 punishes "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."

The definition of libel itself is in Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code:

For the general rules on libel, and how it differs from spoken insults and online posts, see Libel vs cyber libel.

In Disini v. Secretary of Justice (2014), the Supreme Court listed four elements of libel:

1. an allegation of a discreditable act or condition about another person;
2. publication of the charge;
3. the identity of the person defamed; and
4. malice.

Whether a post was published, and whether readers could tell who it was about, are questions of fact for the prosecutor and the court.

Malice is presumed. Article 354 says 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". There are two exceptions: a private communication made in the performance of a legal, moral or social duty, and a fair and true report, without comments, of official proceedings.

When the person defamed is a public figure, Disini noted that the courts apply a stricter standard. There is "actual malice" when the offender makes the statement knowing it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

Not for simply reacting. In Disini, the Supreme Court declared Section 4(c)(4) 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". The Court described those who pressed "Like, Comment and Share" as giving "knee-jerk sentiments".

The Court also held that Section 5 of RA 10175, on aiding or abetting a cybercrime, cannot be applied to online libel.

Be careful with what you write yourself. The ruling protects people who react to someone else's post. If you write your own accusation, in a comment or a new post, you are the author of that statement.

No. Disini held that charging the offender under both Section 4(c)(4) of RA 10175 and Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code for the same act violates the constitutional rule against double jeopardy.

Start from ordinary libel. Article 355, as amended by Republic Act No. 10951, punishes libel by writing and similar means with prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, or a fine from P40,000 to P1,200,000, or both, plus a civil action for damages.

For crimes committed through information and communications technology, Section 6 of RA 10175 says the penalty "shall be one (1) degree higher" than the one in the Revised Penal Code. Disini upheld Section 6. We do not print a computed prison range for cyber libel, because the exact result depends on how the court applies the one-degree increase and the other rules on penalties. For ordinary libel, see Libel penalty in the Philippines.

One year from discovery. Article 90, as amended, says:

For a while, cyber libel was treated differently. In an earlier unsigned resolution, Tolentino v. People, the Court had applied a 15-year period. In Causing v. People (2023), the Third Division abandoned that ruling and held that "the crime of Cyber Libel prescribes in one year". It said the period is counted from the day the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents, not from the day of posting. Note that Causing is a decision of a Division of the Court, not of the full Court sitting en banc.

Only with good motives. Article 361 says the accused is acquitted if the matter charged is true and, moreover, "it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends". For imputations that are not crimes, truth may be proved only if the person accused is a government employee and the facts relate to official duties. More in Is truth a defense in libel?

Section 10 of RA 10175 makes the NBI and the PNP responsible for enforcing the law, and Section 21 gives the Regional Trial Court jurisdiction over violations of the Act. We did not read the rules on venue (in which city or province the case must be filed) or on the designated cybercrime courts, so this page does not state them.

These are made-up examples to show how the rules work. They are not advice for any real case.

Liza posts on Facebook, naming her former landlord, that he "stole my deposit and is a scammer". Depending on the facts, this may meet all four elements: a discreditable act, publication, an identified person and malice. Malice is presumed unless she shows a good motive, and truth helps her only if published with good motives and for justifiable ends.

Carlo reacts with a laughing emoji and writes "grabe" under Liza's post. Under Disini, someone who simply reacts to the post is not liable under the cyber libel provision. If Carlo had added his own accusation, that comment would be his own statement.

The landlord sees the post eight months after it went up. Under Causing, the one-year period runs from discovery, so he may still file. Liza cannot be charged twice for the same post, once for libel and once for cyber libel.

Talk to a lawyer as soon as you receive a demand letter or a subpoena from the prosecutor, or before you file a complaint yourself. The defenses (truth with good motives, privileged communication, lack of actual malice for public figures) depend on evidence. If you are a victim of other online abuse, such as threats, harassment or edited photos from a former partner, see also How to file a VAWC case.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, see Free legal help in the Philippines for the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) and other options.