Can I be sued for cyberlibel over a Facebook post or comment?

Why

Under Philippine law, libel requires four elements: (1) an imputation of a discreditable act, vice, defect, or condition to a person; (2) publication to a third party; (3) identification of the victim (explicitly named or identifiable from context); and (4) malice. When committed through a computer system or social media platform, it becomes cyberlibel under Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175 (the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012), and Section 6 of the same law raises the penalty one degree higher than libel under the Revised Penal Code.

In Disini v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014), the Supreme Court upheld cyberlibel as valid with respect to the original author of a post, but declared it void with respect to others who simply receive the post and react to it. Liking or sharing a post without composing your own defamatory text therefore does not make you a criminal author. However, if you add your own defamatory accusations in a comment or caption, or repost the accusation as your own statement, that text can be treated as your own publication and expose you to prosecution.

Under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious, even if true, unless a good intention and justifiable motive is shown. The law lists two exceptions where malice is not presumed (qualified privileged communications): a private communication made in the performance of a legal, moral, or social duty (such as a confidential complaint to a superior or authority), and a fair and true report, made in good faith and without comments, of official proceedings or of acts of public officers in the exercise of their functions. The courts have also given similar protection to fair comment on matters of public interest, such as the official conduct of public officials and public figures.

Under Article 361 of the Revised Penal Code, truth alone is not an absolute defense. To escape liability, you must establish that the statement is true, published with good motives, and made for justifiable ends. Proof of truth is also only admitted if the accusation is of a crime, or concerns a government employee's official duties. Publishing a true embarrassing fact purely to humiliate or destroy someone's personal reputation out of spite can still be penalized as libel.

The deadline to file cyberlibel was disputed for years, with some courts applying 12 or 15 years. In Causing v. People (G.R. No. 258524, October 11, 2023), the Supreme Court held that cyberlibel, like ordinary libel, prescribes in one year under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code. But under Article 91, that year is counted from the day the offended party or the authorities discovered the post, which may be later than the day it was posted. So an old post can still become the subject of a timely complaint if the person it concerns only recently came across it.