NINETEENTH CONGRESS 
) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) 
Second Regular Session 
) 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
Introduced by Representative Rufus B. Rodriguez 
House Bill No.  _____ 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
In the case of People vs Santos, Jr., Ressa and Rappler, Inc. decided by the Regional 
Trial Court Branch 46 in Manila, defendants Santos, Jr. and Ressa were convicted of violation 
of Section 4 (c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. 
Section 4(c)(4) of RA 10175 provides: 
(4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in
Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed
through a computer system or any other similar means which may
be devised in the future.
After the promulgation, retired Supreme Court senior associate Justice Antonio Carpio 
said the 12-year prescription period is the "overriding issue in the Rappler case".  
RA 10175 did not provide for any prescription period of the crimes punishable in said 
law. In filing the case, the Department of Justice used Act No. 3326, which basically provides 
that for any other offense punished by imprisonment for six years or more, the prescription 
period is 12 years. 
There have been a lot of differing opinions on when the crime of cyber libel prescribes. 
Some legal experts argue that since the article involved in the case was published in May 
2012, then the alleged crime has prescribed in May 2013 and if, granting for the sake of 
argument that it was republished in February 2014, then the complainant only had until 
February 2015 to file the case. Complainant Wilfredo Kent filed a complaint against Santos, 
Jr., Ressa and Rappler, Inc in the NBI in October 2017 and the case was filed in Court on 
February 5, 2019. 
Far Eastern University Law Dean Mel Sta Maria was quoted as saying that when the 
Supreme Court decided the constitutionality of cyber libel in 2014 in the case of Disini et al vs 
Secretary of Justice et al, (GR No. 203335-203518, February 11, 2014), it said that “Cyberlibel 
September 7, 2023
4:00 pm
9093


is actually not a new crime since Article 353, in relation to Article 355 of the penal code, already 
punishes it." And that, "In effect, Section 4(c)(4) above merely affirms that online defamation 
constitutes similar means for committing libel." "Because cyber-libel is not a new crime, then 
the one-year prescriptive period applies to it. Moreover, such prescriptive period was not 
changed by the new Cybercrime Law." 
Further, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) President Atty. Domingo Egon 
Cayosa was reported as stating that “May the case highlight the need for clarity in our laws to 
leave less room for interpretation or misapplication and fortify our courage to uphold the rule 
of law” and that there were questions and arguments regarding the correct interpretation and 
application of jurisprudence and the laws, specifically the Revised Penal Code and the 
Cybercrime Law, with respect to “prescription” and “republication,” as well as the Supreme 
Court Circular 08-2008 with respect to the penalties imposed. 
In order to hopefully avoid any further confusion, this bill provides for amendments to 
RA 10175 by providing for a prescription period for the offenses punishable by said law. 
In view of the foregoing, immediate approval of this measure is earnestly requested. 
RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ 


NINETEENTH CONGRESS 
) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) 
Second Regular Session 
) 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
Introduced by Representative Rufus B. Rodriguez 
House Bill No.  _____ 
AN ACT 
AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10175 ENTITLED “AN ACT DEFINING CYBERCRIME, 
PROVIDING FOR THE PREVENTION, INVESTIGATION, SUPPRESSION AND THE 
IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES” BY 
PROVIDING FOR PRESCRIPTION PERIOD FOR THE OFFENSES PUNISHABLE BY SAID 
LAW, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress 
assembled: 
SECTION 1. A new Section 8 is hereby added to Republic Act 10175 to read as follows: 
SEC 8. Prescription. – The punishable acts as provided for in Chapter II of 
this Act shall prescribe in three (3) years from the commission of the 
offense except Sec 4 (c)(4) Libel, which shall prescribe in one (1) year from 
date of publication. 
SEC 2. The succeeding Sections are hereby renumbered accordingly. 
SEC 3. Repealing Clause. — All laws, decrees or rules inconsistent with this Act are hereby 
repealed or modified accordingly. 
SEC 4. Effectivity. — This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after the completion of its 
publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation. 
Approved, 
9093