Cyber Libel Prescription Philippines: One-Year Rule

Direct Answer

Cyber libel in the Philippines prescribes in one year, not fifteen. The Supreme Court settled this in Causing v. People, G.R. No. 258524, and the one-year period runs from discovery by the offended party or the authorities, not from the date the post went up. The Court held that paragraph 4 of Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code governs, and expressly abandoned the earlier Tolentino doctrine that had produced a fifteen-year period.

For the broader offense, reporting and digital-evidence framework, use the Philippine cybercrime guides.

Key Takeaways

The prescriptive period for cyber libel is one year, under Article 90, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code.
The clock starts on discovery, under Article 91 — not on publication or posting.
Act No. 3326 does not apply. Republic Act No. 10175 did not create a new crime; it penalises libel under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code when committed through a computer system, so the Code governs prescription.
The rule dates from the 2023 Decision, not from 2026. The April 2026 En Banc action affirmed existing doctrine on reconsideration; it did not create it.
The petitioner still lost. The doctrine changed in his favour, but the charges against him were affirmed and sent back for trial.

What if you receive a subpoena or complaint for an old cyber-libel post?

A subpoena or complaint does not by itself decide whether the case is timely. Under Causing v. People, cyber libel prescribes in one year from discovery by the offended party, the authorities or their agents, and the discovery date can require evidence rather than being resolved from the posting date alone. Preserve the post, dates, notices, complaint papers and any evidence showing when the material was actually discovered. Do not ignore a subpoena; the prescription issue can be raised through the proper procedure with the supporting record.

Primary authority: Causing v. People, G.R. No. 258524, April 8, 2026.

Decision Snapshot

Question	Answer
How long is the prescriptive period for cyber libel?	One year.
Which provision governs it?	Article 90, paragraph 4, Revised Penal Code.
When does the period begin?	On discovery by the offended party, the authorities or their agents (Article 91).
Does the fifteen-year period ever apply?	No. The Tolentino doctrine that produced it has been abandoned.
Does Act No. 3326 apply because RA 10175 is a special law?	No. RA 10175 penalises an existing Revised Penal Code offence committed through a computer system.
Does the clock restart each time someone views the post?	No. Philippine law has no continuous-publication rule of that kind; the trigger is discovery.
Is the discovery date decided by the court as a matter of law?	Not necessarily. It can be a question of fact for trial.

Why This Matters

Between 2012 and 2023, complainants and prosecutors frequently proceeded on the assumption that a cyber libel complaint could be filed many years after the post appeared. That assumption rested on treating Section 6 of Republic Act No. 10175 as raising the penalty to an afflictive one, which in turn suggested a fifteen-year period under paragraph 2 of Article 90.

The practical consequence of the current rule is blunt. If more than a year has passed since discovery, a cyber libel charge is vulnerable to dismissal on prescription. For anyone who has received a subpoena over an old post, that is the first thing to check. For anyone considering filing, it is the deadline that matters most.

This page deals only with the prescriptive period. For what cyber libel actually is, its elements and its penalties, see our guide to online libel in the Philippines and the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

Applicable Law

Article 90, Revised Penal Code

Article 90 sets prescriptive periods by the gravity of the penalty, but paragraph 4 deals with libel by name: “the crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.” The Supreme Court held that this specific paragraph, not the general penalty-based paragraph 2, governs cyber libel.

Article 91, Revised Penal Code

Article 91 provides that the period of prescription commences to run from the day the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents. This is why the posting date is not the trigger.

Section 6, Republic Act No. 10175

Section 6 provides that crimes defined by the Revised Penal Code committed through information and communications technologies carry a penalty one degree higher. The Court’s reasoning was that this raises the penalty without creating a new offence — cyber libel remains libel under Article 355, and the Revised Penal Code therefore continues to govern its prescription.

Causing v. People, G.R. No. 258524

The Decision was promulgated on 11 October 2023 by the Third Division, with Justice Inting as ponente. On the doctrinal question the Court stated that it “abandons the Tolentino doctrine on the prescriptive period of Cyber Libel” and that “what governs the prescription of Cyber Libel is paragraph 4, not paragraph 2, of Article 90 of the RPC. Hence, the crime of Cyber Libel prescribes in one year.”

Motions for reconsideration were resolved by the Court En Banc, and the Supreme Court announced the affirmation in a press release dated 20 April 2026 under the heading “SC Affirms Cyber Libel Prescribes One Year from Discovery.”

A note on sourcing. As of 10 September 2026 the full text of the En Banc Resolution was not retrievable from the Supreme Court E-Library or the Court’s own site on repeated attempts. This page therefore states the holding as settled in the 2023 Decision and the fact of the 2026 affirmation, and makes no claim about whether the Resolution addressed prospective or retroactive application. That question is left open here deliberately rather than guessed at, and this page will be updated when the text becomes available.

Who Does This Apply To?

People facing a cyber libel complaint over a post, comment, share or message — prescription is a threshold defence worth raising early.
People who believe they have been defamed online — the one-year window is short, and it is measured from discovery, which usually means from when you saw it.
Journalists, commentators and page administrators whose archives stretch back years.
Employers and HR teams weighing whether an old online statement by or about an employee still carries criminal exposure.

What Is Required?

To assess prescription in a specific matter, three dates have to be established:

The date of discovery. When did the offended party, the authorities or their agents actually learn of the post? This is the start of the clock.
The date the complaint was filed. Filing with the prosecutor’s office is the reference point for interrupting the period.
The interval between them. If it exceeds one year, prescription is squarely in play.

The difficulty in practice is almost always the first date. Discovery is a factual matter, and a complainant who says they only came across the post recently will have to be tested against the record — which is where preserved evidence becomes decisive.

Exceptions and Limits

This is about criminal prescription only. A separate civil action for damages runs on its own timetable under the Civil Code.
Discovery is not the same as publication. An old post discovered recently may still be within the period.
Prescription must be raised. It is a defence, and one that has to be invoked and supported with dates.
Republication is a distinct question. A fresh post that repeats defamatory content raises its own issues rather than simply extending the original.
Ordinary libel is unaffected. Print and broadcast libel already prescribed in one year under the same paragraph.

Practical Scenarios

A Facebook post from three years ago

A subpoena arrives over a post from 2023. If the complainant saw the post when it was published, the period expired long ago. If the complainant credibly says they only learned of it two months before filing, the complaint may survive the threshold and the discovery date becomes a contested fact.

A comment discovered during a job screening

An employer’s background check surfaces a comment from years earlier and the subject of the comment learns of it then. Discovery by the offended party is recent, so the one-year period is only beginning — the age of the comment does not by itself defeat the complaint.

A post deleted, then screenshotted and re-shared

The original is gone, but a screenshot circulates. The person who re-shares is making their own publication decision, with its own exposure and its own timeline. See whether screenshots are admissible as evidence.

Evidence and Documentation

Prescription arguments are won and lost on dates, so preserve the material that fixes them:

The original post or message in its native form, not just a cropped image — see electronic evidence preservation.
Timestamps and metadata, including the post’s publication date and any edit history.
Screenshots showing the date of access, captured with the full browser or app frame visible.
Any correspondence in which either side refers to the post, since it can establish when each of them knew about it.
The complaint-affidavit and its filing stamp, which fixes the other end of the interval.
Platform records where obtainable, covered in social media posts as evidence.

What Should You Do?

If you have received a complaint or subpoena

Establish the post’s date and, separately, when the complainant says they discovered it.
Preserve everything before anything is taken down. Deleting material after receiving a subpoena creates a worse problem than the post.
Raise prescription at the earliest appropriate stage if the interval exceeds one year.
Get counsel. Prescription is a threshold issue and the argument is date-driven.

If you are considering filing

Fix your discovery date honestly and document it.
Do not wait. The window is one year, and a delay invites a prescription defence.
Preserve the post before it disappears.
Consider whether a civil action, a platform takedown or a demand letter better fits what you actually want.

Common Mistakes

Treating the rule as new. It dates from the 2023 Decision. Pages implying it arrived in 2026 are describing the affirmation, not the doctrine.
Reading it as a win for the accused in that case. The petition was denied and the trial court’s orders were affirmed. The doctrine changed; the charges did not disappear.
Counting from the posting date. Article 91 counts from discovery.
Assuming prescription is automatic. It has to be raised and proved.
Deleting the post on receiving a subpoena. It destroys your own evidence on timing and can look like consciousness of guilt.

FAQs

How long do I have to file a cyber libel case in the Philippines?

One year from discovery of the defamatory post by you, the authorities or their agents.

Is the prescriptive period for cyber libel fifteen years?

No. The doctrine that produced a fifteen-year period was expressly abandoned in Causing v. People.

Does the one-year period run from posting or from discovery?

From discovery, under Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code.

Does every new view or share restart the clock?

No. Philippine law does not apply a rolling republication rule of that kind to the running of the period. A genuinely new publication is a separate question.

Does this also cover ordinary libel in print or broadcast?

Ordinary libel already prescribed in one year under the same paragraph. The significance of the ruling is that cyber libel is treated the same way.

Can I still be sued civilly after the criminal period lapses?

Possibly. Civil actions for damages run on their own periods under the Civil Code, and prescription of the criminal action does not automatically dispose of a civil claim.

Who decides when discovery happened?

It is a question of fact. Where the record does not settle it, it can be threshed out at trial rather than resolved on the papers.

Where do I report cyber libel?

A criminal complaint is filed with the prosecutor’s office. For investigation channels, see how to report cybercrime in the Philippines and the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group complaint process.

Official Sources

Supreme Court E-Library — Causing v. People, G.R. No. 258524, Decision promulgated 11 October 2023 (Third Division, Inting, J.): elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph
Supreme Court E-Library — G.R. No. 258524, Resolution: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph
Supreme Court of the Philippines — press release, 20 April 2026, “SC Affirms Cyber Libel Prescribes One Year from Discovery”: sc.judiciary.gov.ph
Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815), Articles 90, 91 and 355
Republic Act No. 10175, Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, Section 6

Last materially reviewed: 10 September 2026.

Cybercode.ph provides general educational information about technology, cybersecurity, privacy, and related legal issues. It is not a substitute for legal, cybersecurity, or professional advice for a specific situation.

Cyber Libel Prescription in the Philippines: One Year, Not Fifteen