BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 93, OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF QUEZON CITY, AND REPRESENTA…

Causing versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of Causing versus People of the Philippines, a petition brought by Berteni Cataluña Causing against the People of the Philippines, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 93, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, and the private complainant, Representative Ferdinand Ledesma Hernandez. Causing is charged with cyber libel under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, and he asked the Supreme Court to stop the prosecution on the ground that the crime has already prescribed. The case matters for two reasons: it fixes the prescriptive period for cyber libel at one year, counted from discovery, and it settles, once and for all, that an unsigned resolution of the Court is not doctrinal and cannot bind strangers to a case.

Procedural History

Causing was charged with cyber libel in two criminal cases before Branch 93 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. He moved to quash the Informations on the ground of prescription. The trial court denied his motion to quash in its Orders dated October 5, 2021 and November 15, 2021. Causing then went up to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari.

In its Decision dated October 11, 2023, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the motion to quash. It ruled that cyber libel prescribes in one year under Article 90, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, but it denied the petition because the question of prescription requires the presentation of evidence, which Causing had not offered. Both sides then filed motions for partial reconsideration: Causing on the reckoning of the period, and the respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, on the length of the period. These motions are what the Court now resolves.

Facts

Causing was charged with cyber libel in two criminal cases before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 93, arising from defamatory remarks he allegedly posted online against Representative Ferdinand Ledesma Hernandez.

Causing moved to quash the Informations, arguing that the crime had already prescribed. He reckoned the prescriptive period from the date the allegedly defamatory remarks were posted on Facebook. He attached no evidence to his motion.

The trial court denied the motion to quash. On petition to the Supreme Court, the Court affirmed, holding that cyber libel prescribes in one year from discovery, but that the issue of prescription requires evidence, which Causing had failed to present. Both parties sought partial reconsideration, and the Court resolved both motions in this decision.

Issues

• Whether or not the unsigned Resolution in Tolentino laid down a doctrine or principle of law on the prescription of cyber libel that may only be modified or reversed by the Court sitting en banc under Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the Constitution.
• Whether or not cyber libel prescribes in one year under Article 90, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether or not the private offended party, the authorities, or their agents may be presumed to have read or discovered a defamatory material at the time it is posted online, for the purpose of reckoning the prescriptive period of cyber libel.

Applicable Provisions

Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the 1987 Constitution provides:

(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case, without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.

This is the provision the Office of the Solicitor General invoked to argue that the Tolentino resolution could only be overturned by the Court en banc.

Article 8 of the Civil Code provides:

Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines.

This is the textual anchor of the doctrine of stare decisis, which the Court ties to the constitutional proviso.

Rule 13, Section 6 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court provides, in its relevant parts:

SECTION 6. Manner of adjudication. - The Court shall adjudicate cases as follows: (a) By decision, when the Court disposes of the case on its merits and its rulings have significant doctrinal values; resolve novel issues; or impact on the social, political, and economic life of the nation. The decision shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. It shall bear the signatures of the Members who took part in the deliberation. (b) By signed resolution, when the Court comprehensively resolves the motion for reconsideration filed in the case or when a dissenting opinion is registered against such resolution. The signed resolution shall no longer discuss issues resolved in the decision and need not repeat the facts and the law stated in it. It shall also bear the signatures of the Members who took part in the deliberation. (c) By unsigned resolution[,] when the Court disposes of the case on the merits, but its ruling is essentially meaningful only to the parties; has no significant doctrinal value; or is of minimal interest to the law profession, the academe, or the public. The resolution shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.

This rule supplies the distinction between a decision, a signed resolution, and an unsigned resolution on which the entire first issue turns.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the unsigned Resolution in Tolentino did not lay down a doctrine or principle of law. Textually, Article VIII, Section 4(3) speaks of a doctrine laid down in a decision rendered en banc or in a division, and Tolentino was resolved by an unsigned resolution, not a decision. Reading the proviso together with the first sentence of the same provision, the decision contemplated is one that shows the concurrence of a majority of the Members who took part in the deliberations and voted. Only decisions and signed resolutions bear those signatures and are published in the Philippine Reports. It would be unfair, the Court said, to bind all persons to a ruling furnished only to the parties. The Court reaffirmed its rulings in Denila and in RMFPU Holdings, and settled the conflict with Eizmendi: an unsigned resolution is not doctrinal and binds only the parties to it. It may serve, at most, as an uncertain guide. Since there was no doctrine to reverse, the Third Division committed no error in deciding the case without referral to the Court en banc.

On the second issue, the Court denied the motion of the Office of the Solicitor General and held that cyber libel prescribes in one year under Article 90, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. Section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act does not create a new crime; it merely punishes libel under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code when committed through a computer system. The Court en banc had already said as much in Disini, Jr. versus The Secretary of Justice. And even if cyber libel were a new crime under a special law, the statutory provisions on prescription must be construed in favor of the accused.

On the third issue, the Court denied Causing's motion. The prescriptive period runs from discovery by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and discovery cannot be presumed from the mere date of posting. The question of when discovery took place requires evidence, which Causing may present at trial.

Doctrine

First, only a decision or a signed resolution of the Supreme Court may lay down a doctrine or principle of law under Article VIII, Section 4(3) of the Constitution. An unsigned resolution and a minute resolution are not doctrinal and cannot be invoked as stare decisis against non-parties, because they are unpublished and do not show the concurrence of the Members who deliberated and voted. They remain binding between the parties as res judicata under Rule 39, Section 47 of the Rules of Court.

Second, cyber libel is not a new crime. It is the libel of Article 353, in relation to Article 355, of the Revised Penal Code, committed through a computer system, and it prescribes in one year under Article 90, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, counted from discovery by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents.

Disposition

The Court denied both motions for partial reconsideration for lack of merit, leaving standing the denial of the motion to quash, with Causing free to prove prescription at trial.

Remember This

Memorize this line: an unsigned resolution is not doctrinal and binds only the parties, while cyber libel prescribes in one year from discovery. Examiners use this case to test the hierarchy of Supreme Court dispositions under Article VIII, Section 4(3), and the prescriptive period for cyber libel.