R.A. 10175 deals with many crimes, including byber libel. Sec. 4(c)(4) of R.A.

10175 states:

“(4) Libel. – The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Art. 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.”

On the other hand, Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, referred to in R.A. 10175,
provides:

“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 by prision correccional
in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in
addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party.”

Culled from these provisions are the following elements of Cyberlibel, as punished under
Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175 in relation to Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code:

a. There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any

act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance.

b. The imputation must be made publicly.

c. The imputation must be malicious.

d. The imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead.

e. The imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person
defamed. (Reyes, Luis B., Revised Penal Code, Fifteenth Edition, 2001, page 932.)

f. The imputation was done through the use of a computer system or any other similar
means. (Sec. 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175)

Malice is present when it is shown that the author of the libelous remarks made such
remarks with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity
thereof. (Yuchengco vs. The Manila Chronicle Publishing Corporation, G.R. No.
184315, 25 November 2009)

Also, even if the name of the person is not indicated in the post, the owner of the post is still
liable so long as the other persons who read the libelous post can identify the person
alluded to. Thus, in the case of Philippine Journalists’ vs Thoenen (G.R. No. 143372, 13
December 2005), the Supreme Court ruled that the element of identifiability is met if it is
shown that at least a third person or a stranger was able to identify him as the object of the
defamatory statement.

On the matter of freedom of speech, the Supreme Court held that the public interest
involved in freedom of speech and the individual interest in the maintenance of private
honor and reputation need to be accommodated one to the other. In the balancing of these
interests, the law prohibits the reckless disregard of private reputation by publishing or
circulating defamatory statements without any bona fide effort to ascertain the truth thereof.
(Erwin Tulfo vs. People of the Philippines and Atty. Carlos T. So, G.R. No. 161032, 16
September 2008.)

Cyberlibel o Paninirang Puri sa Internet o Post sa Facebook etc. Alamin mo paano magkaso, ito na
Legal Help mo!
Siniraan ang puri mo sa Facebook post nya, ano gagawin mo? Ito ang step-by-step process para
makakuha ng evidence at makasuhan mo sya ng criminal case na Cyberlibel at maipakulong:
1. I-screenshot ang buong Facebook post nya na may paninira sayo.
2. Isama ang kanyang FB profile picture para malinaw ang evidence na sya ang nag post;
3. Dapat isama din ang URL kung computer ang gamit mo sa pag screenshot;
4. Dapat mag screenshot ka rin ng kanyang FB profile account
5. Huwag i-edit o lagyan ng anumang words or mark ang screenshot;
6. Kumuha ng common friends nyo sa Facebook para mag testify at mag identify na sya talaga ang
may-ari ng FB account na nagpost ng paninira sayo;
7. Kung wala common friends o anonymous account o hindi mo maidentify ang owner, go to Anti-
Cybercrime Division ng NBI or PNP-CIDG para ma-identify ng computer forensic experts nila;
Ang pagkakaroon ng Facebook account ay hindi nagbibigay ng lisensiya sa may-ari nito na gamitin
ito na makakasira sa buhay at reputasyon ng ibang tao. Ang post, comment o twit na may
pagmumura o paninirang puri sa isang tao sa Facebook, Twitter o iba pang social networking sites o
internet ay isang krimen na "cyberlibel". Ang nasabing post, comment o twit ay isang electronic
evidence na tinatanggap na sa korte bilang ebidensiya ng libel at pwede na itong magamit laban sa
taong nagpost nito sa internet.
Ito ang tinatawag na Cyberlibel na pinaparusahan sa Section 4 (c) (4) ng “Cybercrime Prevention Act
of 2012″ o Republic Act No. 10175 at sinasabi dito na ang cyber libel ay hango sa Revised Penal
Code, Article 353. Ito ay isang isinapubliko at malisyosong pagbibintang ng isang krimen, bisyo o
depekto o isang aksiyon o hindi pag-aksiyon ng isang tao, kundisyon, status o circumstances kung
saan ito ay nadishonor, pagkapahiya at paghamak ng isang tao o korporasyon sa pamamagitan ng
internet at computer.
Ayon sa “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012″ kung saan ang "Libel" ay isinama bilang isang uri ng
"Cybercrime", pinapaparusahan ng kulong ang gumawa nito ng hindi bababa sa 6 months and 1 day
at hindi lalampas na 6 years na pagkakakulong.
Now, meron ka na evidence para kasuhan siya, pwede mo na ito isampa bilang isang criminal case.
8. Gamit ang mga evidence mo, gumawa ng Complaint Affidavit o Sinumpaang Salaysay kung saan
dapat ikwento ang buong pangyayari before, during at after ng posting ng paninira sa FB at elemento
ng krimen. Para makasiguro, humingi ng tulong sa lawyer sa paggawa nito;
9. Hindi mo kailangan na ipa-barangay ang kalaban mo dahil exempted ang Cyberlibel sa
requirement ng barangay hearing.
10. I-file ang Complaint Affidavit o Sinumpaang Salaysay sa Prosecutor’s Office o Fiscal’s Office.
11. Hintayin ang Subpoena ng Prosecutor’s Office o Fiscal’s Office para sa hearing ng preliminary
investigation.
12. Maglalabas ng resolution ang investigating prosecutor at kung ang decision ng Prosecutor’s
Office o Fiscal’s Office ay iakyat sa korte, ang criminal information ay isasampa sa Regional Trial
Court;
13. Mag-iissue ang korte ng warrant of arrest sa akusado para sya ay panagutin sa hukuman at doon
magpresenta ng evidence ang complainant;
14. Ang cyberlibel ay kailangan maisampa sa prosecutor office
within one year mula ng ipost sa Facebook ang paninirang puri. If more than one year na, hindi na
pwede.
Kung kumpleto ka ng evidence, madali mo lang maipakulong ang nanirang puri sa iyo sa Facebook.
Maraming maimbentong depensa ang kalaban mo pero kung matibay evidence mo, wala silang lusot
sa korte.
Paano kung i-delete nila?
Ok lang na i-delete nila ang post as long as meron ka na screenshot nito dahil ito ang electronic
evidence mo laban sa kanya.
All copyright of this post is reserved by Atty. Marlon P. Valderama and E-Lawyers Online. Sharing
is allowed provided the author is acknowledged and clearly indicated. Do not steal the article as
yours, Remember the law of karma, you will be unhappy!
USAPANG CYBERLIBEL:
PWEDE MO BA KASUHAN ANG PANINIRA SAYO SA PRIVATE MESSAGE? SA GROUP
CHAT?
May kaso ba na cyberlibel kung ang paninira at ginawa sa private message? Kung sa group chat?
Baka cyberlibel yan! Case-to-case basis yan kaya kailangan na magconsult sa lawyer. DOWNLOAD
Now at: http://bit.ly/LexMeetbeta
Read more sa LexMeet post.....
Under Article 354 of the RPC, which states that;
“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, except in the following cases:
1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or
social duty; and
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial,
legislative or other official proceedings which are of confidential nature, or of any statement, report
or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the
exercise of their functions.” (emphasize ours)
Malinaw sa batas na ang private communication o pribadong usapan ay isa sa mag depensa sa libel o
cyberlibel kung meron siyang legal, moral at social duty sa pagsasabi nito. Ang private chat sa
internet o text message ay masasabing depensa kung dalawa lamang sila na nasa chat. Kung ito ay
group chat, ito ay maitutring na isang "public chat" kung saan ang libel at cyberlibel ay applicable.
Ayon sa Supreme Court case na Alcantara vs. Ponce, G.R. No. 156183, February 28, 2007:
"Publication in libel means making the defamatory matter, after it has been written, known to
someone other than the person to whom it has been written. There is publication if the material is
communicated to a third person. What is material is that a third person has read or heard the libelous
statement, for "a man’s reputation is the estimate in which others hold him, not the good opinion
which he has of himself."
Kung ang private message ay sa pagitan lamang ng nagpadala at pinadalhan, hindi ito masasabing na
publish dahil walang third party na nakabasa nito at hindi ito masasabing cyberlibel. Ngunit, ang mga
nasabing private message ay pwede ring magamit bilang ebidensiya ng isang krimen, ang krimen na
"unjust vexation". Ang "unjust vexation" o hindi makatarungang pang-aasar o pang-iinis sa isang tao
na walang dahilan na ipinahayag mula sa salita o kilos ay isang krimen under Article 287 Par. 2 ng
Revised Penal Code. Ito ay pinaparusahan ng kulong ng Revised Penal Code:
ART. 387. Par. 2 "Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished by arresto menor
(imprisonment of one day to 30 days) or a fine ranging from 5 pesos to 200 pesos, or both."
Sabi sa desisyon ng Supreme Court, ang "unjust vexation exists even without the element of restraint
or compulsion for the reason that the term is broad enough to include any human conduct which,
although not productive of some physical or material harm, would unjustly annoy or irritate an
innocent person." [Baleros vs. people, G.R. No. 138033, January 30, 2007] Sabi sa nasabing
desisyon, as long as nakakairita o nakaka-inis ang ginagawa sa isang inosenteng tao, ito ay isang
unjust vexation.
Kung ang private message ay hindi makatarungang pang-aasar o pang-iinis sa isang tao na walang
dahilan, pwedeng kasuhan ang nagpadala ng private message ng unjust vexation.
Kung biktima ka o akusado, mag register ka sa www.lexmeet.com para madiscuss sa lawyer at
mabigyan ng solusyon
Alamin mo ang rights at obligation mo sa batas as a victim o akusado sa cyberlibel at paano mo
ipatutupad ito.

Privileges and Defenses in Defamation Cases

Learn about the most common legal arguments that might be
used to defeat a defamation claim.
Updated by Charles Crain, Attorney

Get the compensation you deserve. We've helped 285 clients find
attorneys today.
Full Name
Email
In the language of the law, a defamatory statement is a false statement of fact that
injures a person's reputation. That means if someone says, posts, or broadcasts an
untrue statement about you, and you're harmed by it, you might have a defamation
case.

If someone is sued for defamation, some of the most common defenses include that:

 the statement was true

 the statement was an opinion, not an assertion of fact, and

  the person who made the statement retracted it (meaning they "took it back" in
some meaningful way).
A defendant may also be able to argue that, even though a statement might normally
be defamatory, they're protected by some "privilege" designed to protect the ability to
speak freely in situations where that's particularly important.

This article will provide an overview of each of these defenses and privileges.

The Statement is True

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Because defamation is a false statement of
fact, truthful statements are, by definition, not defamatory. This standard gives the
person who made the statement some leeway—as long as a statement is "substantially
true," it can contain minor inaccuracies without being defamatory.

The Statement is an Opinion

Defamation is a false statement of fact, which means that a statement of opinion can't
be defamatory. For this defense to be successful, the statement must genuinely be an
opinion. It can still be defamatory to make a factual statement that includes qualifiers
like "I think" or "I believe."

Two statements illustrate this distinction:

 Let's say Daniel sends an email in which he writes, "I think Harold is a bad
boyfriend." This may or may not be fair, but it's purely an expression of
opinion. Different people can have different definitions of what it means to be a
"bad boyfriend," and there are no facts in the statement that could be proved or
disproved.

 On the other hand, let's say that Daniel wrote, "I think that Harold beat up his
girlfriend last Saturday." Here, Daniel is making an arguably factual statement
that would seriously harm Harold's reputation if people believed it.
In a defamation lawsuit, a jury will be instructed to look at all of the circumstances
surrounding the making of the allegedly defamatory statement, including evidence
that a supposedly factual statement was actually just an opinion.
"Opinion," in this context, includes things like sarcasm, satire or hyperbole, where
someone says something that isn't literally true in order to express a point of view.
One way courts distinguish protected opinions from potentially defamatory statements
is to ask whether a reasonable person could think that the statements were true.

The Speaker Is Protected by Absolute Privilege

Absolute privilege means that the person making the statement has the absolute right
to make that statement at that time. It doesn't matter if the statement is true or what the
speaker's intentions were. In other words, the person making the defamatory statement
is immune from a defamation lawsuit.

This may seem unfair, but the privilege is intended to protect people's ability to speak
freely in situations in which doing so is particularly important. For example, absolute
privilege applies to:

 witnesses, attorneys, and judges during judicial proceedings

 certain government officials while they are doing their jobs, and

 legislators performing their lawmaking duties.

The same statement by the same person can be protected by absolute privilege in one
context and not in another. For example, if you made an otherwise defamatory
statement while testifying at a trial, that statement would be absolutely privileged, and
you would be immune from a defamation lawsuit. But if you had made the same
statement to a group of people in the hallway of the courthouse during a break in the
trial, you risk being successfully sued for defamation.

The Speaker Is Protected by a Qualified Privilege

Other types of communications are subject to what's called a qualified privilege. This
privilege protects people who are acting in good faith, and who make statements to
fulfil a duty or serve some other positive purpose. For example, the qualified privilege
can protect:

 statements made in governmental reports of official proceedings

 statements made by lower-level government officials such as members of town

or local boards
  citizen testimony during legislative proceedings

 statements made in self-defense or to warn others about a harm or danger, and

 certain types of statements made by a former employer to a potential employer

regarding the employee/applicant.
Unlike with the absolute privilege, a person can successfully sue for defamation if the
speaker abused the qualified privilege. Different states have different specific rules,
but in general the qualified privilege doesn't protect intentional lies, or statements
made out of malice, spite, or any other negative motive.

The employer review qualified privilege is particularly noteworthy. In order to avoid

defamation claims, some employers refuse to confirm any details about former
employees other than their dates of employment. But certain types of negative
statements about a former employee might be protected by the qualified privilege. If,
for example, the employer fired the employee for theft, a statement about that to a
potential employer could qualify as a statement made to warn others about a harm or
danger. On the other hand, the qualified privilege wouldn't apply if the company's
owner just disliked the employee and wanted to harm their future job prospects.

The Speaker Has Retracted the Statement

Retracting an allegedly defamatory statement will often serve as a defense to any
defamation lawsuit, especially if the retraction includes an apology. Some states even
require people who are considering defamation lawsuits to request a retraction before
filing suit. The rules vary by state, but in general an effective retraction needs to be
clear and has to be as prominent as the original statement. For example, if someone
sends a defamatory email to everyone at their company, they'd need to retract the
statement by sending an email to all of the same people.

Learn More About Defamation Law

Defamation is a complicated area of law, and in any defamation lawsuit the stakes are
high for both sides. Whether you think you've been defamed, or someone is accusing
you of defamation, it's important to understand your legal options and how a potential
lawsuit might proceed. Read more about defamation, slander and libel, and make sure
you know what to ask if you're looking for an attorney with the knowledge and
experience to represent you in a defamation case.