G.R. No. 256700 , April 25, 2023
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. JOMERITO S. SOLIMAN, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This case originated from the conviction of respondent Jomerito S. Soliman for the crime of Online Libel under Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012). The Information alleged that on January 23, 2018, Soliman, with malicious intent, posted defamatory remarks on his Facebook account against Waldo R. Carpio. The post accused Carpio, a public official, of unduly delaying the release of a Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance and implied involvement in corrupt “backdoor activities.” After trial, the Regional Trial Court found Soliman guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The RTC, however, imposed only a fine of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php 50,000.00) as penalty, invoking its discretion under Administrative Circular No. 08-2008 and relevant jurisprudence which allows the imposition of a fine alone in libel cases under certain circumstances. Soliman paid the fine and did not appeal his conviction. The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by not imposing the higher penalty of imprisonment mandated by RA 10175 for online libel. The CA dismissed the petition, ruling that any error committed by the RTC was an error of judgment, not jurisdiction, and thus not correctible by certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Regional Trial Court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in imposing a penalty of fine only for the crime of Online Libel.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision, holding that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court clarified that while Section 6 of RA 10175 prescribes a penalty one degree higher than that under the Revised Penal Code for crimes committed with ICT, the penalty for libel under Article 355 of the RPC is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both. Applying RA 10175, the penalty for online libel is therefore prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 6,000 pesos to the maximum amount determined by the court, or both.
The law uses the disjunctive “or,” which grants the court discretion to impose either imprisonment, or a fine, or both. This discretion is further supported by the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 10175 and is consistent with Administrative Circular No. 08-2008, which encourages courts to consider imposing a fine only in libel cases where the circumstances warrant it. The RTC’s decision to impose only a fine, considering the specifics of the case and the fact that the defamatory statement was directed at a public official in connection with his duties, was a valid exercise of this judicial discretion. An error in the exercise of such discretion, if any, is an error of judgment, not a capricious, arbitrary, or whimsical act amounting to grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari. The petition, being one for the correction of a perceived legal error in the penalty imposed, also violated the respondent’s constitutional right against double jeopardy, as his conviction had already attained finality.