Causing v. People
CLARIFICATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Representative Ferdinand Ledesma Hernandez (Hernandez) discovered several Facebook posts uploaded by Berteni Cataluña Causing (Causing) on February 4, 2019, and April 21, 2019. The posts allegedly portrayed Hernandez as a thief who stole public funds intended for the victims of the Marawi siege. Hernandez filed a complaint-affidavit in December 2020, leading to the filing of two Informations for Cyber Libel against Causing. 2. Procedural History: Causing filed a Motion to Quash the Informations on June 8, 2021, arguing that the crimes had already prescribed under the one-year period provided in Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion, ruling that Cyber Libel prescribes in either 12 years (under Act No. 3326) or 15 years (under the RPC due to the afflictive penalty). On October 11, 2023, the Supreme Court Third Division issued a Decision affirming the RTC's denial of the Motion to Quash but clarifying that the prescriptive period for Cyber Libel is indeed one year from discovery. Both Causing and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed motions for partial reconsideration. 3. The Petition: Causing argues that the prescriptive period should be reckoned from the date of publication rather than discovery, asserting that online posts are widespread and discovery should be presumed. Conversely, the OSG argues that Cyber Libel should prescribe in 15 years, citing an unsigned resolution in Tolentino v. People (G.R. No. 240310) which suggested that the afflictive nature of the penalty for Cyber Libel warrants a longer prescriptive period under Article 90, paragraph 2 of the RPC.
Issue(s)
Whether the unsigned Resolution in Tolentino v. People laid down a binding doctrine that Cyber Libel prescribes in 15 years. Whether Cyber Libel prescribes in one year under Article 90, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the prescriptive period for Cyber Libel should be reckoned from the date of publication or the date of discovery.
Ruling
The Supreme Court DENIED both Motions for Partial Reconsideration with finality. It held that: (1) Unsigned resolutions are not doctrinal and do not constitute stare decisis; (2) Cyber Libel prescribes in one year; and (3) The period is reckoned from the date of discovery by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court clarifies that under Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the Constitution, only decisions and signed resolutions can establish binding doctrine. Unsigned resolutions, like the one in Tolentino, are essentially meaningful only to the parties and lack significant doctrinal value as they do not expressly show the concurrence of the majority of the Members who deliberated. Furthermore, only decisions and signed resolutions are required to be published in the Philippine Reports; thus, it would be inequitable to bind the general public to rulings that are not officially reported. The Court re-affirms that while unsigned resolutions serve as res judicata between parties, they do not constitute stare decisis for third parties. On Issue 2: The Court reiterates that Cyber Libel is not a new crime but is the same Libel defined in Article 353 of the RPC, with the use of a computer system acting merely as a qualifying circumstance under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 10175. Legislative history reveals a consistent intent to treat Libel as a 'less grave' offense with a shorter prescriptive period (one year) to synchronize it with civil actions for defamation. The Court emphasizes that the specific provision in Article 90, paragraph 4 of the RPC for 'libel or other similar offenses' takes precedence over the general rules based on penalty gravity. Applying the rule of lenity, any ambiguity in the law on prescription must be resolved in favor of the accused, necessitating the application of the shorter one-year period. On Issue 3: Under Article 91 of the RPC, the prescriptive period for offenses commences from the day the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents. The Court rejects the application of 'constructive notice' to social media posts, noting that unlike public registries (e.g., Register of Deeds), Facebook posts are subject to customizable privacy settings and are not universally accessible. Discovery is a question of fact that must be determined during trial, where the accused has procedural remedies such as cross-examination to elicit evidence regarding when the offended party actually became aware of the defamatory material. The Court cannot engage in judicial legislation by creating a presumption of discovery upon publication where none exists in the law.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court clarifies that only decisions and signed resolutions of the Court, which show the concurrence of the majority and are published in the Philippine Reports, constitute binding doctrine or principle of law under Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the Constitution. Unsigned resolutions and minute resolutions, while binding on the parties under the principle of res judicata, do not establish stare decisis. Regarding Cyber Libel, the Court maintains that it is not an entirely new crime but an existing one (Libel) committed through a computer system, which acts as a qualifying circumstance. Therefore, the specific one-year prescriptive period for 'libel or other similar offenses' under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code applies, rather than the general prescriptive periods based on the gravity of the penalty.