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 .
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 258524
- Promulgated: 2023-10-11
- Ponente: INTING, J.
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case In December 2020, Representative Ferdinand L. Hernandez of South Cotabato filed a complaint-affidavit against Berteni Cataluña Causing, alleging two counts of cyber libel. Hernandez claimed that Causing uploaded Facebook posts in February and April 2019 that falsely depicted him as having stolen public funds intended for Marawi siege victims. The Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City found probable cause and filed two separate Informations with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Causing filed a Motion to Quash, arguing that the charges had prescribed because cyber libel, he contended, prescribes in one year, similar to traditional libel under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). He further argued that the Supreme Court's ruling in **Tolentino v. People**, which set a 15-year prescriptive period for cyber libel, was not a binding precedent. The RTC denied the motion, ruling that cyber libel prescribes in 12 or 15 years, depending on whether Act No. 3326 or Article 90 of the RPC was applied, and subsequently denied Causing's Motion for Reconsideration. Causing then filed a Petition for Certiorari directly with the Supreme Court. ## Issues 1. Whether the Petition should be dismissed outright for being an improper remedy and for disregarding the hierarchy of courts. 2. Whether Article 90 of the RPC or Section 1 of Act No. 3326 determines the prescriptive period of Cyber Libel. 3. Whether the two counts of Cyber Libel charged against Causing have prescribed. ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The Court addressed the procedural objections raised by the OSG. The Court held that the **Petition for Certiorari**, while ordinarily an improper remedy against the denial of a motion to quash, was **warranted under exceptional circumstances**. These circumstances include the purely legal nature of the issues raised concerning the correct interpretation of criminal laws on prescription, which necessitates the Court's guidance for the bench and bar. The Petition also called for the Court to either overturn or reiterate its previous ruling in **Tolentino v. People**. Furthermore, direct resort to the Supreme Court was justified because the issues were purely legal, and only the Supreme Court has the power to overturn its prior rulings. The Court also reiterated that an unsigned resolution, like **Tolentino**, can be a binding precedent if it clearly states the facts and law upon which it is based. **Issue 2:** The Court ruled that **Articles 90 and 91 of the RPC**, not Section 1 of Act No. 3326, determine the prescriptive period of Cyber Libel. The Court clarified that **Republic Act No. 10175** (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012) did not create a new crime but merely recognized a computer system as "similar means" of committing libel, which is already defined and penalized under **Articles 353 and 355 of the RPC**. Section 4(c)(4) of RA 10175 explicitly refers to Article 355 of the RPC. Therefore, cyber libel is a crime defined and penalized by the RPC. Consequently, the prescriptive period for cyber libel is governed by the RPC. The Court specifically held that **paragraph 4, Article 90 of the RPC** is controlling, making the crime of Cyber Libel prescribe in one year, and therefore **abandoned the ruling in Tolentino** which held a 15-year prescriptive period. This is based on several reasons: (1) The literal and plain meaning of paragraph 4, Article 90 states that "the crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year," and cyber libel is essentially the same crime as libel under the RPC. (2) The rule of **Generalia specialibus non derogant** applies, meaning the specific provision for libel (paragraph 4) prevails over the general provision for afflictive penalties (paragraph 2) in Article 90. (3) The legislative intent behind the reduction of libel's prescriptive period to one year (through RA 4661) was to set it apart from other crimes and align it with the civil action for defamation. (4) In…
Keywords
Rule 65 Rules of Court, Section 4(c)(4) Republic Act No. 10175, Article 353 Revised Penal Code, Article 355 Revised Penal Code, Article 90 Revised Penal Code, Section 1 Act No. 3326, Section 6 Republic Act No. 10175, Article 25 Revised Penal Code, Article 89 Revised Penal Code, Article 1147 Civil Code, Republic Act No. 4661, Doctrine of Liberal Construction of Penal Laws, Noscitur a Sociis, Stare Decisis, Hierarchy of Courts, Libel is not protected speech, Cyber Libel, Prescription of Crimes, Criminal Procedure, Freedom of Speech