Dear IBP Davao,
Atty ask ko lng po kung mamanalo po ako kasi may kinasohan po akong cyberlibel pinost po nya ako sa facebook at tarlac bentahan facebook marketplace at nandon ang picture, ko buong pangalan ko, at sinira niya po ako sa mga tao. Umabot kung saan saan post nya sa akin so ang ginawa ko po kinasohan ko cya tpos na warrant of arest na po cya ngbial cya ng 30k tpos ngcounter po cya na inaamin nya sa counter nya na totoo po na cya ang ngpost. may laban po kaya ako?
Cyberlibel Victim
Dear Cyberlibel Victim,
To begin with, let me present to you the elements of when a person can be found liable for cyberlibel under Section 4 (c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175 in relation to Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code. The elements are as follows:
a. There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance.
b. The imputation must be made publicly.
c. The imputation must be malicious.
d. The imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead.
e. The imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person defamed.
In your case, it appears that the elements here are present. First, that you have been imputed of a vice or defect; Second, that it was made publicly through the Tarlac Bentahan Facebook Marketplace and it has spread through the Facebook community; Third, it was directed towards you considering that your picture and your name was placed in the said post; Fourth, that such post has tended to cause dishonor or discredit over your own person; and Fifth, there has been malice on the part of the person who posted (or the accused). The last element is where you have a better fighting chance to prove your claim of cyberlibel.
It is clear that the element of malice is present here considering that the said person (or accused) has already admitted to the said post. Using the case of Disini vs. The Secretary of Justice, 727 Phil. 28, 113 (2014), the Supreme Court has explained the concept of ‘actual malice’ as “malice in fact when the offender makes the defamatory statement with the knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false of not.” Thus, applying such case in your situation, the fact that the said accused has already admitted to the said post, with a reckless disregard of whether such statement was false or not, already shows that malice is clearly established in your case.
I hope the readers of this article will remember one important statement: Think Before You Click. In the day and age where social media has been a platform for writing, one must still be aware of the ramifications of cyberlibel or other cybercrimes under Republic Act No. 10175.
