RESEARCH ON INTERNET LIBEL and AVAILABLE JURISPRUDENCE

Libel committed through the internet is still a novel issue in the Philippines. Unlike other highly
industrialized countries such as the United States of America and the countries in Europe where the
developments in technology has urged such countries to enact new laws in order to update existing
laws, the Philippines has no law on internet libel, due to the fact that cybercrime law is still under TRO.
The only Jurisprudence on the issue of libel committed through the internet is Belo vs Guevarra (cant
find the citation) where the petition was dismissed, however, the same was not tried due to the merits
of the case but due only to jurisdictional constraints. As of today, there is no Jurisprudence as decided
by the Supreme Court of the Philippines in such matter. There have been a number of cases filed in
court involving libel committed through the internet but such cases like that of the aforementioned case
discussed in this study have been discontinued after an amicable settlement or are still pending before
the lower courts.
Libel in the Philippines
Libel in the Philippines is defined by Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code as
A libel is a public and malicious imputation of the crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any
act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to cause the dishonour, discredit, or contempt
of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
Libel is a form of defamation or defamacion in the Spanish text of the Codigo Penal of which the Revised
Penal Code of the Philippines originated from. It is that which tends to injure the reputation or to
diminish the esteem, respect, good will or confidence in the plaintiff or to excite derogatory feelings or
opinions about the plaintiff. (MVRS Pub. Inc. vs. Islamic Dawah Council of the Phils., Inc., 230 Phil. 241)
In a case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, it held that the enjoyment of a private
reputation is as much a constitutional right as the possession of life, liberty or property. The law
recognizes the value of such reputation and imposes upon him who attacks it, by slanderous words or
libelous publications, the liability to make full compensation for the damage done. (Worcester vs.
Ocampo 22 Phil. 42)
In order for libel to attach in Philippine Law, the following elements were enumerated in a Supreme
Court decision: (Diaz vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159787)
1.It must be defamatory
2.It must be malicious
3.It must be given publicly
4.The victim must be identifiable
It was stressed by the Supreme Court in Diaz vs. Court of Appeals that all the four (4) elements of libel
must be present, for an absence in any one of those previously enumerated, the case for libel will not
prosper. Thus, in order to understand the elements of libel punishable under the Revised Penal Code, a
discussion particular to each element must be conducted.
THIRD ELEMENT: PUBLICITY IN RELATION TO INTERNET LIBEL
In the third element, Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the Requirement for publicity. It
is essential that the defamatory statement was given publicly. The mere composing of libel is not
actionable as long as the same is not published. It was held by the Supreme Court that the
communication of libellous materials to the person of the defamed alone does not constitute
publication since that could not injure his reputation that others hold of him. (People vs. Atencio, CA-
G.R. Nos. 11351-R to 11353-R)
On the question of the meaning of publication and when the libellous matter is deemed published? It
was held in previously cited case of People vs. Atencio that the communication of the defamatory
matter to some third person or more persons is deemed to be a publication. However, the same
defamatory matter must be read by the third person for such to constitute publications.
In relation to libellous matter posted through an internet forum, message board, yahoo group, chat
room, or any other similar means, the libellous communication is deemed to have been published when
viewed by at least a third person as cited in People vs. Atencio. The matter posted in such internet
platforms even when performed as a legal, moral, or social duty to bring to the knowledge of an official
who has supervisory duty over the person of whom the libellous matter was against is still considered
libellous for not being communicated privately. Thus, when the accused instead of communicating the
matter to the official who is the proper authority, aired the same in a public meeting, it was held that
the statements made where not privileged. (People vs. Jaring, C.A., 40 O.G. 3683)
It however, should be noted that in the case of Yuchenco vs. Parents Enabling Parents Coalition, Inc.
where the Yuchengcos filed a libel suit against the Parents Enabling Parents Coalition for allegedly
posting in the latters website malicious articles against the former and their group of companies, the
Court of Appeals has dismissed the case owing for the lack of endorsement by the Office of the Solicitor
General, which should represent the government in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals in all
criminal proceedings as mandated under Presidential Decree 478. The Court of Appeals decision in the
previously cited case added that any party may appeal a case before them without the conformity of the
Office of the Solicitor General only in behalf of the civil liability claims. In the preliminary investigation of
the libel suit in Yuchengco vs. Parents Enabling Parents Coalition, Inc. the City Prosecutor of Makati
found probable cause to charge the members of the coalition with 13 counts of libel. The Regional Trial
Court of Makati however dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. This prompted the Yuchengcos to
file an appeal without the endorsement of the Department of Justice. The issue involving internet libel in
that case was ordered to be dismissed by the Department of Justice which ruled that there is no such
thing as internet libel since Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code strictly provided for the means of
which libel may be committed.
Here in lies the question on what the means libel may be committed in light of Article 355 of the Revised
Penal Code. Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the manner of which it may be
committed and the penalty for its commission, to wit:
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
correctional 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.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION: WOULD IT INCLUDE POSTS IN THE INTERNET??
Since because of the novelty of internet libel in the Philippines there are no established Supreme Court
jurisprudence as to the matter, it up to the counsel to find existing jurisprudence of a similar nature to
persuade the courts. Internet libel may be presented as among those means enumerated in Article 355
of the Revised Penal Code under xxx or any other similar means, xxx. It was held in one Supreme Court
decision that defamatory words having been made in a television program was considered to be libel as
contemplated by Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code. While the medium of television is not expressly
mentioned among the means specified in the law, it easily qualifies under the general provision or any
other similar means. (People vs. Casten, C.A.-G.R. No. 07924-CR) SO WHY NOT INCLUDE THE INTERNET?