MANILA—A cyber libel case can still be filed within 15 years from publication, the Court of Appeals ruled in affirming the conviction for cyber libel of Nobel laureate and Rappler CEO Maria Ressa and a former writer-researcher.

The appellate court’s Fourth Division, on July 7, denied Ressa and Reynaldo Santos, Jr.’s appeal of their conviction in the cyber libel case filed by businessman Wilfredo Keng.

• Maria Ressa loses appeal of cyber libel conviction

A full copy of the decision was uploaded on the CA website only recently.

In the 41-page ruling, the CA Fourth Division rejected Ressa’s argument that a cyber libel case, like a libel case under the Revised Penal Code, can only be filed within 1 year from the publication of the libelous article.

Instead, CA cited the Revised Penal Code (RPC) to conclude that because the Cybercrime Prevention Act increased the jail term for cyber libel to up to 8 years in prison, the penalty became “afflictive” which, under article 90 of the RPC, prescribes in 15 years.

“Considering the increase of penalty by one degree pursuant to Section 6 of the Cybercrime Law, the penalty for cyberlibel becomes afflictive and shall prescribe in fifteen (15) years, following Articles 25 and 90 of the Revised Penal Code,” the court said.

A Court of Appeals ruling is not yet a binding precedent unless affirmed by a Supreme Court en banc decision.

A prescriptive period refers to the time within which a case may be brought in court. In the case of libel and cyber libel, it is counted from the date of publication.

The ruling differs from the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 46’s findings, which initially determined the prescriptive period to be 12 years, applying a different law, Act 3326.

• Rappler's Ressa, ex-researcher get up to 6 years in jail for cyber libel

But in upholding her ruling, Manila RTC Branch 46 Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa quoted an unpublished and unsigned resolution of a Supreme Court division imposing a longer period of 15 years, without clarifying which of the 2 prescriptive period applies.

• Court stands by Ressa verdict, tells defense: Present evidence in court, not media

The controversial Rappler article was initially published in May 2012 and was updated in February 2014. Keng did not file his cyber libel complaint until years later.

Ressa had argued the Cybercrime Prevention Act, which punishes cyber libel, did not apply because it was passed only in September 2012 or 4 months after the initial publication and its implementation was halted by a temporary restraining order by the Supreme Court, which was supposedly resolved only in October 2014 or beyond the February 2014 update of the article.

But the CA clarified the TRO only suspended the enforcement of the law, not the rights under the law. And in any case, the TRO was lifted when the SC ruled on the constitutionality of the Cybercrime Prevention Act on Feb. 11, 2014, a few days before the Feb. 19, 2014 update of Rappler.

Rappler corrected the spelling of the word evasion in the update, from “t” to “s.”

The CA said the update, regardless of the substance, is considered a republication.

“[A] single defamatory statement, if published several times, gives rise to as many offenses as there are publications,” it said.

The appellate court ruled the Rappler article was malicious and defamatory because it imputed several illegal activities to Keng such as human trafficking, murder, smuggling, among others, without supposedly verifying the allegations and refusing to clarify the story despite Keng’s repeated attempts.

Rappler had cited an intelligence report and an article from the Philippine Star but Keng submitted clearances from the National Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Authority.

CA said Keng was a private person and the defamatory statements against him are presumed malicious.

Even assuming Keng were a public figure, there was actual malice because the “article was republished with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not; and its retraction could have been made, or at the very least, a clarificatory article was published knowing that there have been some indications of falsity in the subject article.”

In libel cases, malice is presumed in every defamatory statement involving a private person while actual malice must be proven for public figures.

Rappler mentioned Keng in an article involving then-Chief Justice Renato Corona who was facing an impeachment trial.

Keng was supposedly among the controversial figures who allowed Corona to use luxury vehicles.

Corona was impeached as Chief Justice in 2012 and subsequently died in 2016.

CA called “flimsy” Rappler’s reason for not publishing the clarificatory article. Rappler had said it had “other more urgent news to attend to at that time.”

It also rejected Ressa’s defense that she had no knowledge or participation in the republication.

It cited article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, which holds publishers, editors and business managers liable for libel regardless of knowledge or participation, saying it is the publisher's duty to ensure no libels are published.

CA also explained the proper computation of the imposable penalty.

The Manila RTC previously imposed a penalty of up to 6 years in prison but CA modified it to up to 6 years, 8 months and 20 days.

The appellate court reminded Ressa and Santos that they cannot simply invoke the “blanket of freedom of expression” or that they were fulfilling a duty or a lawful exercise of a right.

“[P]ublic officers and private individuals who are wronged through an inordinate exercise by newspapermen or media of freedom of speech and of the press have every right to avail themselves of the legal remedies for libel," said the decision penned by CA Associate Justice Roberto Quiroz.

"Media cannot hide behind the constitutional guarantee of a free press to maliciously and recklessly malign the persons and reputations of public or private figures through the publication of falsehoods or fabrications, the sordid distortions of half-truths, or the playing up of human frailties for no justifiable end but to malign and titillate."

It was concurred in by associate justices Ramon Bato, Jr. and Germano Francisco Legaspi.

The CA acknowledged that the Ressa cyber libel case is a novel implementation of the Cybercrime law.

It clarified that it is imposing strict implementation not to curtail freedom of expression but to deter defaming a person's reputation, in the age of fake news and disinformation.

'WEAKENED' PRESS FREEDOM

Rappler had earlier said Ressa and Santos both disagree with the CA’s ruling and will avail themselves of legal remedies even all the way to the Supreme Court.

They said the decision “weakens the ability of journalists to hold power to account” but they also believe the case is an opportunity for the high court to revisit the constitutionality of cyber libel and the continuing criminalization of libel.

In statement Tuesday, Ressa’s international legal team condemned the CA decision.

“Maria became the first Filipino Nobel Laureate in recognition of her work. She should be celebrated - not thrown in jail - for it. The latest judgment by a court in the Philippines shows that Maria has been considered guilty until proven innocent – and then prevented from proving her innocence. I hope that the Philippines Supreme Court will now set things right – and restore the country’s constitutional commitment to freedom of speech,” Amal Clooney said.

They challenged the new administration to uphold press freedom.

“This is a pivotal moment for the Philippines. Duterte leaves behind a country in which press freedom, human rights and the rule of law have been severely weakened. The world is watching how the new President responds. Will President Ferdinand Marcos Jr stop the rot, or will he double down on his predecessor’s attacks on journalists and civil society?” Caoilfhionn Gallagher said.

For her part, Ressa sought to draw attention to a pattern of attacks against the media.

“This decision follows alarming developments for press freedom over the past 3 weeks: the unprecedented blocking of news websites, the shutdown order of Rappler, the killing of a media worker, and increased online attacks against journalists and activists,” she said.

“Despite these sustained attacks from all sides, we will continue to do our jobs. Independent journalism in the Philippines is needed now more than ever,” she added.

The CA ruling came weeks after the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission ordered the shutdown of Rappler due to alleged violations of its registration documents because the news website supposedly allowed foreign control.

Rappler denied the claim saying Philippine depository receipts or PDRs are not proofs of ownership but are merely investment instruments.

RELATED VIDEO

Watch more News on iWantTFC