In Causing v. People (G.R. No. 258524, April 8, 2026), the Supreme Court sitting En Banc denied with finality both sides’ motions for partial reconsideration and ordered entry of judgment immediately. Two things are now settled: cyber libel under Section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act prescribes in one year, not fifteen; and that one year runs from discovery of the defamatory post by the offended party, the authorities or their agents — not from the date it was published online.
This case turns on Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, which fixes when the prescriptive period starts running. Read the provision itself: Revised Penal Code, Article 91 — full text, annotation and interpreting cases.
What the Court Actually Held
Berteni Cataluña Causing was charged with two counts of cyber libel before Branch 93 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City over material posted on Facebook, on the complaint of Representative Ferdinand Ledesma Hernandez of the Second District of South Cotabato. His motion to quash was denied, and that denial travelled up to the Supreme Court, which resolved it in a Decision dated October 11, 2023.
That 2023 Decision made the ruling that mattered: cyber libel prescribes in one year, applying Article 90, paragraph 4 and Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, running from discovery by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents. The Court nonetheless refused to quash the Informations, because prescription on these facts could not be resolved on the pleadings alone — Causing had reckoned the period purely from the posting dates and attached no evidence. He was told he could prove prescription at trial.
Both sides moved for partial reconsideration, and it is those motions that this April 2026 Resolution, written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, disposes of. Both were denied.
The Solicitor General wanted fifteen years. The OSG argued that cyber libel carries an afflictive penalty, so Article 90, paragraph 2 gives it a fifteen-year prescriptive period; that a computer system is not a means of publication “similar” to those listed in Article 355; and that Tolentino v. People — an unsigned First Division Resolution dated August 6, 2018 — had already established the fifteen-year rule as binding doctrine that only the Court En Banc could disturb. The Court rejected each point. On the constitutional argument it held that an unsigned Resolution does not lay down a doctrine or principle of law within the meaning of Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the Constitution, so nothing needed to be overturned En Banc in the first place.
Causing wanted the clock to start at publication. He argued that because online posts spread far more widely than the traditional modes of publication in Article 355, the complainant should be presumed to have seen the post the moment it went up — otherwise, he warned, a person could be charged years after posting so long as the complainant claims a later discovery. The Court refused to indulge that presumption. Article 91 fixes discovery, not publication, as the trigger, and whether and when a particular complainant discovered a particular post is a question of fact.
What Changed, and What Didn’t
Strictly speaking, the governing rule did not change in April 2026 — it was already the holding of the October 2023 Decision. What changed is its finality. The Court denied both motions with finality, directed that no further pleadings be entertained, and ordered entry of judgment immediately. The fifteen-year theory built on Tolentino, which prosecutors had been invoking, is now closed off.
It is worth being candid that the Court was closely divided. Chief Justice Gesmundo and Justices Zalameda, Gaerlan and Marquez concurred; Senior Associate Justice Leonen and Justice Caguioa wrote separate concurring opinions; Justice Singh, though on leave, left a concurring vote. On the other side, Justice Kho, Jr. wrote a concurring and dissenting opinion that six Justices — Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao and Villanueva — joined. A ruling can be final and still rest on a narrow majority, and this one does.
What did not change is equally important for anyone actually facing a charge. A one-year period is not a magic escape hatch. Prescription still has to be proved, and the Court twice declined to resolve it on a motion to quash precisely because the record was bare. The date on the post is the beginning of the inquiry, not the end of it.
Who This Affects
Anyone who posts publicly — which now means almost everyone — and anyone considering a cyber libel complaint. For an accused, the practical difference between one year and fifteen is the difference between a defence that is often available and one that is almost never available. A great deal of material still circulating online, some of it written by lawyers, asserts the fifteen-year figure. That is no longer a tenable reading.
For a complainant, the lesson runs the other way. Because the clock starts on discovery rather than publication, a genuinely late-discovered post can still be actionable; but the complainant should expect to have to establish when the discovery happened, and should not assume that an old post is safely within reach simply because it was only recently brought to their attention.
Journalists, commentators and page administrators should also note what the Court declined to decide. Nothing here disturbs the elements of libel, the defences of truth and privileged communication, or the separate question of what counts as republication. The Resolution is about timing.
What It Means in Practice
- Cyber libel prescribes in one year. The fifteen-year argument, which rested on the unsigned Resolution in Tolentino v. People, has been rejected with finality.
- An unsigned Resolution is not doctrine. It does not bind under Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the Constitution, and a later ruling departing from it is not an En Banc reversal of anything.
- The year runs from discovery, not posting. There is no presumption that the offended party read the post on the day it appeared.
- Prescription is an evidentiary matter. Raise it, but be prepared to prove the discovery date at trial — a motion to quash supported only by the post’s date will not succeed.
- If you are considering filing, preserve proof of when you first learned of the post: screenshots with timestamps, the message or referral that alerted you, and the surrounding correspondence.
This commentary is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance specific to your situation, please consult a licensed attorney.
If you are facing a cyber libel complaint, or considering filing one, our firm is available to help. You may reach us via Viber or WhatsApp, call us at 0995 433 5550, or send an email to vivasnobles@gmail.com.