G.R. No. 258524 , October 11, 2023
BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 93, OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF QUEZON CITY, AND REPRESENTATIVE FERDINAND LEDESMA HERNANDEZ OF THE SECOND DISTRICT OF SOUTH COTABATO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This case involves the determination of the prescriptive period for the crime of Cyber Libel under Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012). The petitioner challenged the criminal proceedings against him. The core legal issue distilled from the separate concurring opinion of Justice Singh revolves around whether Cyber Libel, which imposes a penalty one degree higher than traditional libel under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), also carries a different prescriptive period. The opinion examines the legislative history and intent behind the prescription of libel to resolve this ambiguity.
The historical context is crucial. Originally, under Article 90 of the RPC, libel prescribed in two years. However, Republic Act No. 4661 amended this in 1966, shortening the prescriptive period to one year. The legislative records reveal this amendment was specifically intended to synchronize the one-year prescriptive period for the criminal action with the pre-existing one-year prescriptive period for the civil action for defamation under the Civil Code, thereby eliminating procedural conflicts.

ISSUE

What is the prescriptive period for the crime of Cyber Libel?

RULING

The prescriptive period for Cyber Libel is one year. Justice Singh, concurring, provides the legal logic that while R.A. 10175 is a later and special law that imposes a penalty one degree higher for Cyber Libel than for traditional libel under the RPC, it is completely silent on the matter of prescription. This legislative silence is decisive. The prescriptive period for a crime is a matter of substantive law that must be expressly provided. In the absence of any specific provision in R.A. 10175 altering it, the general rule on prescription in the RPC applies. Since Cyber Libel is legally recognized as a form of libel, it falls under Article 90 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. 4661, which sets a one-year prescriptive period for libel.
The reasoning underscores that the 1966 legislative intent to set a one-year prescriptive period for libel was independent of the penalty imposed; it was purely to harmonize criminal and civil prescription periods. This intent remains controlling. The subsequent enactment of R.A. 10175, which increased the penalty but did not touch upon prescription, did not implicitly alter this settled one-year period. If Congress intended to change the prescriptive period for Cyber Libel, it would have done so explicitly within the law. Therefore, despite the heightened penalty, Cyber Libel prescribes in one year, consistent with the legislative history and the principle that penal laws must be construed strictly against the state.