Ivan Jed T. Rosal

LEGAL MEMORANDUM TO: Atty. Jude Ocampo FROM: Atty. Ivan Jed T. Rosal DATE: March 18, 2025 RE: Application of Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 ______________________________________________________________________________ I. ISSUE Does mere participation in a libelous social media post open oneself to criminal liability under cyber libel? II. SHORT ANSWER No, mere participation in a libelous social media post does not immediately equate to criminal liability. For one to be held liable through participation, said participation must further propagate new and libelous material. III. STATEMENT OF FACTS Mr. X took to Facebook to air out his grievances against Ms. Y. The former stated in a digital soliloquy that a certain neighbor of his should run for politics considering she has a “mouth for luring people albeit into scams”. Mr. X went on to explicitly name said neighbor as Ms. Y. He further described her as a “woman gifted with a siren’s call but cursed with a basilisk’s face”. To serve as the coup de grâce to his social media monologue, he confidently stated that Ms. Y had scammed more than (10) ten different people out of their hard-earned money in a networking scheme. Ms. A clicked the “love reaction” because she was happy to see someone speaking out against Ms. Y. Ms. B commented that she was already aware of her devious character and even stated that Ms. Y also maintains an extramarital affair with a priest. Ms. C shared the post with the caption “This is terrible!”. IV. DISCUSSION A social media post containing defamatory statements toward an individual can be the basis for a cyber libel case. However, as a general rule, only the original author is liable for said post. Other people can react or comment their response to said social media post without being subjected to the same liability as the author. As an exception, subsequent shares or comments that further propagate the defamatory content could still expose individuals to liability under certain circumstances. Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 uses the Revised Penal Code as the basis for cyber libel. 1 The Revised Penal Code states that only the author, editor, or business manager of the publication of the libelous content can be held liable: “Art. 360. Persons responsible. — Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be responsible for the same.” 2 The editor or business manager shares the same criminal liability as the author for the defamations found in any print media. Hence, the crime of cyber libel expressly punishes (2) two sets of persons: 1. The author of the libelous post, which includes the person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication of the libelous post. The person who created the libelous post would fall under this category. 2. The editor or business manager, in case the libelous post is contained in a book, pamphlet, newspaper, magazine or serial publication. A person who participates in a libelous post by merely commenting or sharing falls on neither of the (2) two categories that would incur criminal liability. In the case of Disini, et al., vs Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, 11 February 2024, a person giving general comments does not in any way share the same criminal intent as the author of the post he/she commented on. In fact, the Supreme Court itself stated that comments such as “I agree” “That’s so true” or “He is really bad” are “essentially knee-jerk sentiment of the reader who may think little or haphazardly of their response to the original posting”. 3 The Latin legal principle of “Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege" 4 applies in this situation wherein there is no crime if there is no law punishing it. Nowhere in both the Revised Penal Code and the Cybercrime Prevention Act does it expressly state that people who comment, react, or share libelous social media posts incur criminal liability. Now, before you think this rule is set in stone, let’s talk about the fine print. Jurisprudence dictates that the rule would inevitably have its own exceptions. The exception arises when the comment is no longer limited to the context of the original defamatory post. When such a comment goes 1 Republic Act No. 10175, § 4(c)(4) (2012). 2 Revised Penal Code, Art. 360. 3 Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, Feb. 11, 2024. 4 A fundamental principle in criminal law, meaning "No crime, no punishment without law." This ensures that no one can be punished for an act that is not explicitly criminalized. beyond the post by offering new libelous content or material, the comment then becomes an original post, which in turn transforms the person commenting into another offer of a completely distinct and new defamatory post. This, in effect, accords to the person commenting an entirely different criminal liability from the previous author. In the case of Disini, et al., vs Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, 11 February 2024, the Supreme Court gave a hypothetical example wherein a person named Nestor posts in his blog “Armand is a thief!”. On the other hand, another person, Arthur notices the post and comments “Correct!”. Based on the example, only Nestor can be held liable. His criminal liability is straightforward wherein he is the author of the post. As for Arthur, not only is he not the author, but he is also merely expressing his agreement with the blog. The same concepts may be expanded toward cyber libel, such that, only Nestor would be liable for cyber libel and a million other “Arthurs” that express mere agreement with that statement would not be subject to liability. 5 V. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing discussion, Ms. A and Ms. C do not incur criminal liability for cyber libel under Republic Act No. 10175. Their respective actions—reacting to and sharing the post— fall under mere participation, which does not meet the legal definition of authorship or editorial responsibility for libelous content. Jurisprudence supports that such knee-jerk reactions or passive engagements do not equate to the publication or propagation of new defamatory material. However, Ms. B’s comment goes beyond mere agreement and instead introduces a separate defamatory imputation against Ms. Y. By alleging that Ms. Y maintains an extramarital affair with a priest, Ms. B essentially became an original author of new libelous material, thereby exposing herself to criminal liability. Accordingly, while not all participation in a defamatory social media post results in liability, individuals must exercise caution when engaging in online discourse. Any comment that expands or introduces new defamatory imputations may transform a mere participant into an author of cyber libel, potentially leading to legal consequences. 5 Supreme Court hypothetical example in Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335.