CITATION: Tolentino v. People, GR 240310, Aug.

6, 2018
TOPIC: Re prescriptive period of cyber libel
Caveat: This case serves only as a notice. There is really no “usual case” format for this
because this merely stated the prescriptive period of cyber libel.
FACTS:
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated August 6,
2018August 6, 2018 which reads as follows: 
"G.R. No. 240310 —G.R. No. 240310 — Wilbert Tolentino v. People of the Philippines,
Eva Wilbert Tolentino v. People of the Philippines, Eva Rose Pua, Judge Maria Luisa Lesle,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 90, Quezon Rose Pua, Judge Maria Luisa Lesle, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 90, Quezon City.City.”
This Court has carefully reviewed the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the
instant Petition for Certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and
accordingly resolves to DISMISSDISMISS the same for: (1) failure to state the date of receipt of
the assailed Order dated March 19, 2018 as required by Sec. 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court;
and (2) failure to sufficiently show that the Regional Trial Court gravely abused its discretion in
rendering the Orders dated March19, 2018 and June 18, 2018 in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-17-
14518-CR.Petitioner claims that the assailed Orders violate Section 14, Article VIII of the1987
Constitution for failing to state clearly and distinctly the facts and law on which the assailed
Orders are based. In NICOS Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals, we reiterated the time-
honored principle that "the constitutional provision does not apply to interlocutory orders" such
as the RTC's March 19, 2018 Order denying petitioner's motion to quash "because the provision
'refers only to decisions on the merits and not to orders of the trial court resolving incidental
matters.'"
Anent petitioner's claim that the action has prescribed, although Republic Act(RA) No.
10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, does not categorically state the prescriptive
period for such action, the new prescriptive period for the crime of libel in relation to RA No.
10175 can be derived from the penalty imposed on the said crime. Section 6 of RA No. 10175
provides that the "penalty to be imposed shall be one (1)degree higher than that provided for
by the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, and special laws, as the case may be." As such,
the former penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods is increased to
prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period. The new
penalty, therefore, becomes afflictive, following Section 25 of the RPC. Corollarily,
following Article 90 of the RPC, the crime of libel in relation to RA 10175 now prescribes in
fifteen (15) years. Thus, respondent Eva Rose Pua's filing of the complaint on August 8,
2017 against petitioner's Facebook post dated April 29, 2015 was well within the
prescriptive period for libel in relation to RA 10175.