Affirming DOJ, court calls Rappler article ‘republication,’ says prescriptive period 12 years

Rappler CEO Maria Ressa and former researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr. were convicted of cyber libel over an article that was originally published months before the anti-cybercrime law was enacted in 2012.

The article was "updated" in 2014, when Republic Act No. 10175 was already law, and it was for this "republication" that the Department of Justice (DOJ) charged Ressa, Santos, and Rappler Inc. in court.

Rappler lawyers argued the theory of republication does not apply to online media. Even if it did, they said the update just corrected a typographical error. They said there was no evidence shown of any "criminal intent to defame through the updates made."

In its highly-anticipated ruling, the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 46 agreed with the DOJ's position that the article was a republication.

Citing the Supreme Court case of Brillante v. CA, Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa said that "a single defamatory statement, if published several times, gives rise to as many offenses as there are publications."

Montesa said doctrines applicable to ordinary libel apply to cyber libel, which she said makes the doctrine of republication also applicable in the Rappler case.

"The Court considers the update a republication of the article. An update connotes that a change was made to the article. Said updated version was the one published and still available on the website of Rappler Inc.," the judge wrote.

"The Court is of the conclusion that the original version was replaced by the updated one considering that it is no longer accessible in the Rappler's website. In other words, the original article published on 29 May 2012 can no longer be found. Only the 19 February 2014 version presently exists and accessible on the internet," she added.

While Chay Hofileña, head of Rappler's investigative desk, testified that the update was just a correction of a typographical error, the court said her claim was hearsay.

Hofileña, the court said, failed to show documentary evidence to substantiate her testimony. The court also pointed out that the defense did not present Santos, who wrote the article, and the reporter who allegedly corrected the error as witnesses.

And because the defense supposedly did not establish that Hofileña was personally involved in the writing or updating, the court said her testimony was inadmissible.

The article, "CJ using SUVs of 'controversial' businessmen," is an article about the supposed connection between former chief justice Renato Corona and businessman Wilfredo Keng. 

The story cites an "intelligence report" that allegedly says Keng was under surveillance for an alleged link to "human trafficking and drug smuggling."

The prosecution presented in court a clearance from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) showing Keng had no criminal record, the court said.

12 years?

Another significant issue in the high-profile case is whether or not Ressa, Santos, and Rappler could still be charged considering the date of the publication.

The article was published in 2012 and allegedly "republished" in 2014. Rappler said the one-year prescriptive period for libel had already expired by the time Keng filed his complaint with the NBI in 2017.

But in charging Rappler, the DOJ claimed that the prescriptive period for cyber libel is 12 years because the Cybercrime Prevention Act is a special law and is thus under Act No. 3326, which governs the prescription period of offenses in special laws.

In its ruling, the court likewise said the crime of cyber libel will prescribe after 12 years. This interpretation means one can be sued for cyber libel 12 years after publication.

It said Act No. 3326is "controlling" because RA 10175 does not provide for its own prescriptive period.

"The instant case was filed in Court on 5 February 2019, which is well within the period of 12 years and clearly, prescription has not yet set in," the court said.

Rappler warned that the verdict sets a "dangerous precedent" not only for journalists but for "everyone online." The news site said the "extension" of the prescriptive period "weakens the ability of journalists to hold power to account."

Ressa and Santos face up to six years in prison but remain free on post-conviction bail. Their lawyer, Theodore Te, said they will decide what legal action to take in the next 15 days. — RSJ, GMA News