THE Supreme Court (SC) has allowed the penalty of fine as an alternative to imprisonment in punishment for committing the crime of online libel.
In a full court decision, the SC through Associate Justice Antonio Kho resolved to deny the petition for review filed by the Office of the Solicitor General which sought the reversal of the lower court’s ruling against Jomerito Soliman.
In particular, the SC junked the petition filed by the OSG seeking t reversal of the October 30, 2020 decision and May 31, 2021 resolution issued by the Court of Appeals which affirmed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City convicting Soliman for online libel and sentencing him to pay a fine of P50,000.
Court records showed that Soliman was charged in 2018 for online libel under Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. (RA) 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act, for a Facebook post against then Assistant Secretary of the Department of Agriculture Waldo Carpio.
In the said post, Soliman claimed that Carpio took favors and unduly delayed the release of Soliman’s sanitary and phytosanitary import clearance.
The trial court found Soliman guilty beyond reasonable doubt of online libel and sentenced him to pay a fine of P50,000
In imposing the penalty of fine only, the RTC invoked Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. (AC) 08-2008, or the Guidelines in the Observance of a Rule of Preference in the Imposition of Penalties in Libel Cases, which permits the imposition of fine, rather than imprisonment in libel cases.
Soliman paid the fine and no longer appealed his conviction.
But the OSG filed a petition before the appellate court, arguing that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in imposing a penalty of fine only for Soliman’s violation of online libel.
But the CA denied the OSG’s petition and affirmed the trial court’s ruling, prompting the chief state lawyer to elevate the issue before the SC.
In its petition, the OSG insistated that Section 6 of R.A. 10175 mandates the imposition of a penalty one degree higher than that provided in the Revised Penal Code (RPC), when committed with the use of information and communication technologies.
The OSG argued that the penalty of imprisonment must be imposed when the offense is committed with the use of such technologies.
The OSG also assailed the trial court’s basis for imposing the penalty of fine, which is AC 08-2008, arguing that the circular cannot apply to online libel as R.A. 10175 was enacted later.
However, in upholding the trial court and CA’s rulings, the High Court stressed that fine as an alternative penalty for online libel is legally permitted, citing Section 6 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act, which imposes upon online libel, or libel committed through information and communication technologies, a penalty that is one degree higher than the traditional libel under the RPC.
Meanwhile, Article 355 of the RPC states that “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 prison correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from P40,000 to P1.2 million, or both…”
Thus, the SC pointed out that the RPC recognizes that the penalty may be imposed “as a single or alternative penalty,” considering the use of disjunctive word “or” between term of imprisonment and fine.
As for online libel, the SC said the OSG erroneously assumed that only imprisonment may be increased or decreased by degrees under the RPC, and that thus, imprisonment is the mandatory penalty for online libel.
The high tribunal further ruled that in the imposition of penalty for libel/online libel, courts should bear in mind the principles laid down in AC 08-2008.
These include that the circular does not remove imprisonment as alternative penalty for the crime of libel under Article 355 of the RPC and that judges may exercise discretion in determining whether or not the imposition of a fine alone would best serve the interests of justice.