What is Cyber Libel?

Cyber Libel – is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or
imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory
of one who is dead.

The Internet has disrupted every aspect of our lives including how we gather information,
communicate with friends and family, and conduct our businesses. But the good always
comes with the bad. While the Internet has revolutionized every sphere of human activity, it
also facilitated the criminal activities of nefarious individuals. 

Recognizing this dual aspect of this paradigm-shifting activity, Congress enacted Republic

Act 10175, also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. This new law defined
and punished offenses, which may be grouped as follows: offenses against the
confidentiality, integrity, and availability of computer data systems; computer-related
offenses, such as computer forgery, fraud, and identity theft, and content-related offenses,
such as cybersex, child pornography and, most significantly, cyber libel. 

 Section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which punishes the crime of cyber
libel, makes reference to Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code:

Philippine laws punish libel:

Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a
vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance
tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to
blacken the memory of one who is dead.

Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. — A libel committed by means of writing,
printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition,
cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished…

(Revised Penal Code of the Philippines [Act No. 3815 {1930}])

Sec. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. — The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime
punishable under this Act:

(c) Content-related Offenses:

(4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, are committed through a computer system or any other similar
means which may be devised in the future.

(Cybercrime Prevention Act)

Jurisprudence simplified the elements of

libel: 
1.  Allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another;

2.  Publication of the charge;

3.  Identity of the person defamed; and

4.  Existence of malice. (Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, 373 Phil. 238 [1999])

There is publication if the material is communicated to a third person (M.H. Newell, The Law
on Slander and Libel in Civil And Criminal Cases 175 [1924]). What is material is that a third
person has read or heard the libelous statement (Alonzo v. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 51
[1995]).

To satisfy the element of identifiability, it must be shown that at least a third person or a
stranger was able to identify the subject as the object of the defamatory statement (Kunkle
v. Cablenews-American, 42 Phil 757 [1922]).

The law provides for a presumption of malice from the defamatory character of a
statement (L. Boado, Compact Reviewer in Criminal Law 403-404 [2d ed. 2007]), even if the
statement is true. The law says:

Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. — Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be

malicious, even if it is true…

(Revised Penal Code)

Philippine libel laws are stricter than those of the US. Under US laws, the truth of the
allegations is an absolute defense against defamation. Also, statements made to warn
others about harm or danger are a qualified privilege.

Constitutionality of Cyber Libel 

The constitutionality of the provision on cyber libel was subsequently assailed in Disini v.
Secretary of Justice (G.R. 203335, 11 February 2014). The Supreme Court (SC), however,
ruled that libel is not a constitutionally protected speech. It follows, therefore, the cyber libel
is not unconstitutional as well. 

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 does not really define cyber libel. It penalizes libel,
as defined under the Revised Penal Code, but imposes a higher penalty because of the use
of information and communication technologies. 

In Disini, the SC explained this qualifying circumstance arises from the fact that in “using the
technology in question, the offender often evades identification and is able to reach far
more victims or cause greater harm.” 

The elements of libel are the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning
another; publication of the charge; the identity of the person defamed, and the existence of
malice. As to the first requirement, the allegation must be a malicious imputation of a crime
or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical
person or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. 

For cyber libel, in particular, the publication requirement is satisfied when the allegation is
made public through the use of information and communication technologies. For the third
requisite, it is not necessary that the person defamed is named. If the totality of the
publication makes it possible to determine who the defamed person is, then this element is
also satisfied. Finally, malice exists when the offender makes the defamatory statement with
the knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard for whether it was false or not. 

When committed through information and communication technologies, libel

becomes cyber libel, which carries with it a higher penalty by one degree under Section 6
of the Cybercrime Prevention Act. Specifically, libel under the Revised Penal Code is
punished with prision correccional in its minimum period, which is from six months and one
day to two years and four months, and medium period, which is from two years, four
months and one day to four years and two months; or a fine ranging from P200 to P6,000 or
both. 

However, if it is cyber libel, the penalty is increased by one degree. Thus, the penalty is
prision mayor in its minimum period, which is from six years and one day to eight years, and
medium period, which is from eight years and one day to 10 years. In prosecuting the crime
of libel or cyber libel, the venue is jurisdictional. For ordinary libel, the venue, where the
complainant is a private individual, is limited to only either of two places, namely: where the
complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense or where the
alleged defamatory article was printed and first published. 
However, for cyber libel, the place where the defamatory article was printed and first
published is impossible to ascertain. It also cannot be where the defamatory online article
was first accessed. In Bonifacio v. RTC Makati City, the SC said if it allows cyber libel to be
filed where the article is first accessed, the author of the defamatory article may be sued
anywhere in the Philippines. 

The private complainant can just allege that he accessed the defamatory online article in a
far-flung place. For instance, a blogger in Manila who posts a defamatory article may then
be sued in Ilocos Sur, where the offended party allegedly first accessed the article. To
prevent this chaotic situation, the High Court effectively limited the venue to the place
where the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense. 

The Internet is a potent medium. If used for good, it can lead to boundless benefits to
society. But if utilized for nefarious ends, the prejudice against the community is
unimaginable. As Uncle Ben in Spider-Man said, “With great power comes great
responsibility.” The Internet has given us great power. May we use it responsibly for the
good of humanity.

Published 25 February 2019, The Daily Tribune

The Internet has disrupted every aspect of our lives including how we gather
information, communicate with friends and family, and conduct our businesses. But the
good always comes with the bad. While the Internet has revolutionized every sphere of
human activity, it also facilitated the criminal activities of nefarious individuals.

Recognizing this dual aspect of this paradigm shifting activity, Congress enacted
Republic Act 10175, also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. This new
law defined and punished offenses, which may be grouped as follows: offenses against
the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data systems; computer-related
offenses, such as computer forgery, fraud and identity theft, and content-related
offenses, such as cybersex, child pornography and, most significantly, cyber libel.

The constitutionality of the provision on cyber libel was subsequently assailed in Disini
v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. 203335, 11 February 2014). The Supreme Court (SC),
however, ruled that libel is not a constitutionally protected speech. It follows, therefore,
the cyber libel is not unconstitutional as well.

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 does not really define cyber libel. It penalizes
libel, as defined under the Revised Penal Code, but imposes a higher penalty because
of the use of information and communication technologies. In Disini, the SC explained
this qualifying circumstance arises from the fact that in “using the technology in
question, the offender often evades identification and is able to reach far more victims
or cause greater harm.”

The elements of libel are the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning
another; publication of the charge; identity of the person defamed, and existence of
malice.

As to the first requirement, the allegation must be a malicious imputation of a crime or of

a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural or
juridical person or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. For cyber libel in
particular, the publication requirement is satisfied when the allegation is made publicly
through the use of information and communication technologies.

For the third requisite, it is not necessary that the person defamed is named. If the
totality of the publication makes it possible to determine who the defamed person is,
then this element is also satisfied. Finally, malice exists when the offender makes the
defamatory statement with the knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of
whether it was false or not.

When committed through information and communication technologies, libel becomes

cyber libel, which carries with it a higher penalty by one degree under Section 6 of the
Cybercrime Prevention Act. Specifically, libel under the Revised Penal Code is
punished with prision correccional in its minimum period, which is from six months and
one day to two years and four months and medium period, which is from two years, four
months and one day to four years and two months; or a fine ranging from P200 to
P6,000 or both.

However, if it is cyber libel, the penalty is increased by one degree. Thus, the penalty is
prision correccional in its maximum period, which is from four years, two months and
one day to six years and prision mayor in its minimum period, which is from six years
and one day to 8 years.

In prosecuting the crime of libel or cyber libel, venue is jurisdictional. For ordinary libel,
the venue, where the complainant is a private individual, is limited to only either of two
places, namely: where the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of
the offense or where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published.
However, for cyber libel, the place where the defamatory article was printed and first
published is impossible to ascertain. It also cannot be where the defamatory online
article was first accessed. In Bonifacio v. RTC Makati City, the SC said if it allows cyber
libel to be filed where the article is first accessed, the author of the defamatory article
may be sued anywhere in the Philippines. The private complainant can just allege that
he accessed the defamatory online article in a far-flung place. For instance, a blogger in
Manila who posts a defamatory article may then be sued in Ilocos Sur, where the
offended party allegedly first accessed the article. To prevent this chaotic situation, the
High Court effectively limited the venue to the place where the complainant actually
resides at the time of the commission of the offense.

The Internet is a potent medium. If used for good, it can lead to boundless benefits to
society. But if utilized for nefarious ends, the prejudice to the community is
unimaginable. As Uncle Ben in Spider-Man said, “With great power comes great
responsibility.” The Internet has given us great power. May we use it responsibly for the
good of humanity.

Defamation laws (cyber-libel) and the Internet

Region: OntarioAnswer # 361

Ontario

Libel and slander, known broadly as defamation, are untrue statements made
by someone that are harmful to someone else’s reputation. The statements
can be about a person, business, organization, group, nation, or product that
tends to hurt the person’s reputation. Also, the false statements must be made
to other people, not just to the person it is about. Libel refers to written
statements and slander refers to oral statements. Under the law, both are
grounds for a civil lawsuit.

Cyber-libel is a term used when someone has posted or emailed something

that is untrue and damaging about someone else on the Internet, including in
message boards, bulletin boards, blogs, chat rooms, personal websites, social
media, social networking sites, or other published articles. If you are suing
because your reputation was damaged due to a libellous statement, you do
not have to prove that it caused you financial loss because the law presumes
that you suffered a financial loss as a result of the loss of your reputation.
The basic elements of defamation law remain unchanged on the Internet.
Individuals or entities are still responsible for defamatory statements they
publish, just as they are in print or broadcast media, and the same defences
apply. Courts have also demonstrated they are not willing to allow Internet
defamers to claim anonymity.

Generally, a harmful statement will not amount to libel, if one of the following

defences applies:
 Made only to the person it is about. If it was only made to the person mentioned in the
statement, and not to anyone else;
 True statements. If it is actually true, and the person making the statement makes the
statement honestly and not maliciously;
 Absolute privilege applies to statements made in court (as evidence in a trial) or in
parliament;
 Qualified privilege protects statements made non-maliciously and for well-meaning
reasons. For example, if an employer is requested to give a reference for an employee, and
they give a statement that is their honest opinion;
 Fair comment. The defence of fair comment may apply in situations where statements
made were about issues of public interest, as long the comments were honest statements
of opinion, based on fact. If your statements were malicious, this defence will not apply;
and
 Responsible communication of matters of public interest. This defence is available in libel
cases. It allows journalists the ability to report statements and allegations, in cases where
there is a public interest in distributing the information to a wide audience. However, this
defence only applies where the news was urgent, serious and of public importance, and the
journalist used reliable sources and tried to report both sides of the issue.
In Canada, the courts have shown they are quite willing to hold responsible
anyone who uses the Internet to defame others, even if the defamer is outside
the country.

The flip side of Canadian courts’ willingness to hear cases involving

defamation originating outside the country is that the Internet makes it even
easier for plaintiffs to go “forum shopping”. Differences in the defamation laws
and damages awarded in Canada, the United States, and Europe may give
allegedly defamed individuals (particularly high-profile plaintiffs) pause to
consider where to sue. Now, with the Internet, these plaintiffs may have an
easier time making a case for their right to sue anywhere in the world.
Another concern, heightened by the Internet’s broad reach, is the issue of
damages. A defamatory statement available on the Internet could arguably
prompt a stratospheric damage award because of the huge, worldwide
audience. Canadian courts have shown they are not willing to tie damages to
the Internet’s potential audience without proper proof.

For more information about defamation laws and the Internet, or for legal
assistance, contact a lawyer.