Online Defamation as a Cybercrime in the Philippines: Definition, Requirements and Penalties » Philippine e-Legal Forum (2023)

The crime of defamation is defined and punished in the Philippines in Article 353 (“Definition of Defamation”) in conjunction with Article 355 (“Defamation by letter or similar means”) of the Revised Penal Code (“PRC”). It has been debated whether the "publication" required in defamation covers the Internet, which did not exist at the time the RPC was enacted. This debate was resolved with the publication of Law of the Republic (“R.A.”) No. 10.175, also known as the LawCyber ​​Crime Prevention Act 2012🇧🇷 This article covers the definition, elements/requirements and penalties that apply to online defamation.

Definition of defamation

Criminal libel is defined as the public and malicious accusation of a crime or vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, condition or circumstance tending to dishonor, discredit or despise any person or entity blacken the memory of a deceased.

THE CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT

ÖCyber ​​Crime Prevention Act 2012defines and punishes cyber crime, divided into three main categories:

• (one)System- related crimes, namely illegal access, illegal wiretapping, data intrusion, system intrusion, device misuse and cyber-squatting;

• (b)Computer-related offences, d. H. counterfeiting, fraud and identity theft; and

• (c)satisfiedrelated crimes, d. H. Cybersex, child pornography anddefamation.

It is interesting that theImplementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 10175provides a different way of classifying cybercrimes, as follows:

• (one)cyber crimeunder Section 4, also referred to as "Core Cybercrime". The IRR follows the "Cyber ​​Crimes" classifications under R.A. 10175, with the notable downgrading of cyber-squatting, cybersex and defamation to “Other cybercrimes”.

• (b)Other Cybercrimein Section 5: (a) cyber squatting; (b) cybersex; (c) defamation; and (d) other criminal offenses, including complicity in the commission of cybercrime and attempted commission of cybercrime.

On the other hand, the jurisprudence of the Supreme CourtCybercrime Arrest Warrants Rulecategorizes cybercrime for the purpose of determining forum as follows:

• (a) Cybercrime under Section 4 of theRA 10175and other offenses under Section 5 hereof; and

• (b) pursuant to Section 6 of theRA 10175, any crime defined and punishable in other laws when committed by, through and with the use of information and communication technology or ICT.

DEFINITION OF AWARD ONLINE

As set out in Section 4(c)(4) ofRA 10175, online defamation is “[the] unlawful or prohibited acts of defamation within the meaning of Article 355 of the Revised Criminal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or other similar means that may be developed in the future”. The crime is referred to simply as "slander."RA 10175.

To distinguish it from defamation committed in traditional ways, it is appropriately referred to as "online defamation" (although it is sometimes also referred to as cyber defamation, internet defamation, or electronic defamation). Online defamation has been challenged as unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court concluded that online defamation underRA 10175is valid and not unconstitutional, with the proviso that online defamation does not capture those who simply receive and respond to the post (those who click 'like', 'comment' and 'share'). However, if the "comment" not only reacts to the original post, but creates a whole new story of defamation, then this is to be regarded as a post originally published on the Internet.

SEPARATE FEES UNDER RPC AND RA 10175

ÖCyber ​​Crime Prevention Act 2012provides that “an indictment under this Act shall not affect liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Criminal Code, as amended, or any special statute” (Section 7). In a later case, the Supreme Court stated that future determination of the applicability of Section 7 would be left to actual cases.

However, the Supreme Court stated that there could not be two claims for defamation under the RPC and online defamation under the RPCRA 10175, as this is a violation of the double jeopardy ban. If material published in print and deemed defamatory is republished online, or vice versa, that identical material cannot be the subject of two separate charges of defamation. The two offenses, one an RPC violation and the other aRA 10175essentially contain the same elements and are in fact one and the same crime. Online defamation refers to the medium of publication - via the computer system.

DEFAULT REQUIREMENTS

Online defamation is simply defamation in the traditional sense, committed through a computer system or other similar means that might be developed in the future. In other words, the traditional defamation elements or requirements still apply. For an allegation as defamatory within the meaning of Art. 353 of the RPC,the following requirements must be met: (a) be defamatory; (b) must be malicious; (c) must receive advertising; and (d) the victim must be identifiable.

A fifth element or requirement is defined in R.A. 10.175 for online defamation: the act must be committed through a computer system or other similar means that may be developed in the future.

FIRST REQUIREMENT: DEFAMATORY STATEMENT

A complaint will be considereddefamatoryto attribute to any person the commission of a crime, the possession of any vice or defect, real or imagined, or any act, omission, condition, condition or circumstance tending to dishonor or discredit or bring him into contempt, or to tend to obscure the memory of a deceased.

In determining whether a claim existsdefamatory,The words used are to be interpreted in their entirety and are to be understood in their simple, natural, ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by persons reading them, unless they appear to be used in a different sense and were understood.

In addition, an accusation is sufficient if the words are sufficient to cause a listener to believe and understand that the person or persons against whom they are spoken are guilty of a specific criminal offense or are sufficient to imply the honesty, to question the virtue or reputation or to preserve the person or to publicly ridicule persons.

SECOND REQUIREMENT: Evil

maliceconnotes malice or resentment, speaks not of duty but only of damaging the slandered person's reputation, and implies intent to cause further and unjustified harm. Malice is evil intent or motive. It is the essence of the crime of defamation.

If the victim is a private individual, the public prosecutor does not need to prove intent. The law expressly presumes its existence (maliciousness) from the defamatory nature of the impugned statement. In his defence, the accused must show that he has a legitimate reason for the defamatory statement, even if it is in fact true.

"Actual malice," or even malice, occurs when the perpetrator makes the slanderous statement knowing that it is false or with frivolous disregard for whether or not it was false. The standard of reckless disregard used here requires a high level of awareness of likely untruths. There must be sufficient evidence that allows the conclusion that the accused actually had serious doubts about the truthfulness of the statement he published. Gross or even gross negligence is not sufficient to prove genuine fraudulent intent.

The public prosecutor bears the burden of proving the existence of actual intent in cases where such an element is necessary to establish guilt. The plea of ​​lack of actual intent, even if the statement turns out to be false, is possible if the victim is a public official or public figure. Since the Criminal Code and, by implication, the Cybercrime Act are aimed primarily at defaming individuals, the Supreme Court recognizes that these laws imply a stricter standard of "dolus" to convict the originator of a defamatory statement in which the offended Party one is a public figure. The interest of society and the maintenance of good government require a thorough discussion of public affairs.

THIRD REQUIREMENT: PUBLICATION

There arepublicationif the material is passed on to third parties. It is not required that the person being defamed has read or heard of the defamatory comment. What matters is that a third party read or heard the defamatory statement, for a person's reputation is the esteem others have of them, not the good opinion they have of themselves.

Simply put, publication in libel means making the defamatory matter known, once written, to someone other than the person against whom it was written. This is because, although it may hurt their self-esteem, communicating the defamatory matter to the person being defamed cannot damage their reputation. A man's reputation is not the good opinion he has of himself, but the esteem that others have of him.

FOURTH REQUIREMENT: IDENTIFICATION

On the other hand, to satisfy the element ofidentifiability,it must be proven that at least a third party or an outsider could identify him as the subject of the defamatory statement. It is sufficient that the allusion is obvious by intrinsic reference or that the publication contains information describing or referring to facts and circumstances from which other readers of the article know the person alluded to; or when the latter is pointed out by strange circumstances so that those who know that person can understand and have understood that it is the person mentioned.

In order to determine the meaning of an allegedly defamatory publication, "that construction must be adopted which gives the matter a natural and evident meaning in the simple and ordinary sense in which the public would naturally understand what was uttered . The allegedly libelous published material must be interpreted as a whole. In applying these rules to the language of alleged defamation, the court will ignore any subtle or sophisticated explanation by the publisher when held accountable. The whole question is the effect the publication had on the minds of the readers and since the explanation did not help them in reading the article it is too late to remove the sting, if any, of the word used in the article.

FIFTH REQUIREMENT: USE OF A COMPUTER SYSTEM

As mentioned above, cybercrime is commonly referred to as online defamation in the traditional sense and is committed by acomputer systemor other similar means that may be developed in the future.

A “computer system” is defined inRA 10175as “any interconnected or related device or group of devices, one or more of which, in accordance with a program, perform automated data processing. Covers any type of device with data processing capabilities, including but not limited to computers and mobile phones. The device consisting of hardware and software may include input, output, and storage components that may be stand-alone or connected to a network or other similar devices. Also includes computer data storage devices or media.” OCybercrime Arrest Warrants Rulehas a shorter definition: A computer system refers to any interconnected or related device or group of devices, one or more of which performs automated data processing according to a program.

APPLICATION OF PENALTY

The Supreme Court upheld the policy contained thereinAdministrative Circular No. 08-08, which provides guidelines for the imposition of penalties in cases of defamation. He offers:

• 1. This Administrative Circular does not eliminate imprisonment as an alternative punishment for the crime of defamation under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code;

• 2. The judges involved may, at their best discretion and taking into account the particular circumstances of each case, decide whether the imposition of a fine alone serves the interests of the judiciary better or whether waiving the imposition of a custodial sentence would reduce the severity of the offence, violence against exercise social order or otherwise violate the dictates of justice;

• 3. If only one fine is imposed and the defendant is unable to pay the fine, there is no legal impediment to imposing the fineRevised Penal CodeProvisions on subsidiary imprisonment.

The Supreme Court clarified that theCircularit does not deprive the courts of the power to sentence the accused in defamation cases to imprisonment when the circumstances so warrant. In other words, court practice holds that a fine alone is generally acceptable as a punishment for defamation. However, the courts can impose imprisonment as a penalty if the fine is insufficient in the circumstances to satisfy the requirements of substantive justice or to lessen the seriousness of the offence.

[See courtdecisionin the online defamation trial against Maria Ressa and Rappler. Sources/Citation: Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation vs. Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation Domingo, G.R. Wann. 170341, July 5, 2017; Disney v. Attorney General of New York, G.R. When. 203335, February 11, 2014; Annex Visit vs. State of Appeal. folks, G.R. When. 194214, January 10th