Mr. Zedong Mao is pursuing a cyberlibel case against Groper Inc. for articles published on their website in 2012 and 2014. The articles alleged that Mr. Mao was involved in illegal activities like human trafficking, drug smuggling, and murder. To prove cyberlibel, Mr. Mao must show that the articles 1) made discreditable allegations about him, 2) were published online, 3) identified him, and 4) were made with malice. If found guilty, Groper Inc. could face penalties under the Cybercrime Prevention Act as well as the Revised Penal Code.

1. “At the law firm of Dubious and
Partners, client reception room
CYBER LIBEL PRESENTATION

2. Legal Inquiry Form :
I , Mr. Zedong Mao, residinging in
Tawi-tawi, has come to pursue a
case for a dishonorable online
allegations in the website of Groper
Inc. the facts are as folows

3. Groper Article : 29May, 2012
Shady Past ?
“CJ Corona the use of an expensive vehicle)
found that plate number ZWK 111 was
registered under the name of Zedong Mao
He is the president of a mining company,
Century Peak Metals Holdings Corp, and
Century Hua Guang Smelting Inc., Carriedo
Plaza, and Balikbayan Shopping Mall. “

4. Groper Article : 19Feb2014
“Shady past?
Mr.Mao had been under surveillance for alleged
involvement in illegal activities, namely “human
trafficking and drug smuggling” …
“The document also said Mr.Mao was involved in a
murder case for which he was “never jailed.” …
“According to a 2002 Philippine Star report,
Mr.Mao was also accused of smuggling fake
cigarettes …

5. The elements of cyberlibel are:
(a) the allegation of a discreditable act or
condition concerning another;
(b) publication of the charge;
(c) identity of the person defamed; and
(d) existence of malice.
(e)the act must be committed through the use of
a computer system or any similar means which
may be devised in the future,.

6. The elements of cyberlibel are:
(a) the allegation of a discreditable act or
condition concerning another;
(b) publication of the charge;
(c) identity of the person defamed; and
(d) existence of malice.
(e)the act must be committed through the use of
a computer system or any similar means which
may be devised in the future,.

7. The elements of cyberlibel are:
(a) the allegation of a discreditable act or
condition concerning another;
(b) publication of the charge;
(c) identity of the person defamed; and
(d) existence of malice.
(e)the act must be committed through the use of
a computer system or any similar means which
may be devised in the future,.

8. The elements of cyberlibel are:
(a) the allegation of a discreditable act or
condition concerning another;
(b) publication of the charge;
(c) identity of the person defamed; and
(d) existence of malice.
(e)the act must be committed through the use of
a computer system or any similar means which
may be devised in the future,.

9. “At the Law Firm of Dubious
and Partners,
Conference room “
GROUP 8 CYBER LIBEL
PRESENTATION

10. Facts of the Case Elements of Libel
Articles imputation:
a) “Mr.Mao had been under surveillance for alleged involvement in illegal activities, namely
“human trafficking and drug smuggling”
b) “The document also said Mr.Mao was involved in a murder case for which he was “never
jailed.”
c) “According to a 2002 Philippine Star report, Mr.Mao was also accused of smuggling fake
cigarettes
The article ascribes unto Mr.Mao commissions of crimes such as drug smuggling, human
trafficking and murder
(a) the allegation of a discreditable act or
condition concerning another;
the subject article was published in the website of Groper, Inc. on 29 May 2012 and was
updated on 19 February 2014.
The publication involved in this case dated 19 February 2014 is actually a republication.
(b) publication of the charge;
“Mao,” Mr. Mao using a first name also spelled as “Zedong.”
(The 1st publication was still accessible in the website. )
“was registered under the name of Zedong Mao He is the president of a mining company Peak
Metals Holdings Corp, Carriedo Mall “
(c) identity of the person defamed;
Several follow-ups were made by Mr.Mao’s lawyer giving them all the opportunity to verify,
issue a clarificatory article, or at least, publish the side of Mr.Mao. Groper did not.
(d) existence of malice.
the subject article was published at Groper’s website. (e)the act must be committed through the
use of a computer system or any similar
means which may be devised in the
future,

11. Article 355 of The Revised Penal Code Section 4(c)(a) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act
ARTICLE 355. Libel by Means Writings or
Similar Means. — A libel committed by
means of writing, printing, lithography,
engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical
exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any
similar means, shall be punished by prisión
correccional in its minimum and medium periods
or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or
both, in addition to the civil action which may be
brought by the offended party. (Underscoring
provided)
Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is public and
malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect,
real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition,
status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor,
discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person,
or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
SECTION 4. Cybercrime Offenses. — The
following acts constitute the offense of
cybercrime punishable under this Act:
(c) Content-related Offenses:
(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. (Underscoring
provided)

12. TULFO v PEOPLE (GR. No. 187113, January
11, 2021)
Tulfo was acquitted of Libel when he
published a newspaper article imputing
acts of corruption against Atty.So who is
Bureau of Customs officer.
Freedom of the Press is invocable when
the performance of duty or moral
qualification of a public official is under
attack, inorder to protect the government
and the public.

13. Penalosa v Ocampo (G.R. No. 230299.
April 26, 2023)
The information for criminal Libel
against Penalosa was dismissed for the
law penalizing cybercrime was not
existent when the malicious facebook
post was published in 2011.

14. Disini v SOJ (G.R. No. 203335, February 11,
2014 )
…where the offended party is a private
individual, the prosecution need not prove
the presence of malice. The law explicitly
presumes its existence (malice in law) from
the defamatory character of the assailed
statement. For his defense, the accused
must show that he has a justifiable reason
for the defamatory statement even if it was
in fact true.

15. Per Sec. 6 RA10175, the penalty provided
for a crime similar to the RPC shall be higher
than 1 degree,
hence, prision correccional in its maximum
period and prision mayor in its minimum
period is 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 8
years, the offense shall prescribe after
TWELVE (15) YEARS following the Section
25& 90 of the RPC, Prision mayor being an
afflictive penalty.

16. Bonifacio v. RTC (G.R. No. 184800, May 5,
2010)
The Court ruled out the first publication
criteria for venue for defamatory material
appearing on the internet as there would be
no way of determining the situs of its printing
and first publication. Leaving the venue of
libel cases where the complainant is a private
individual is limited to only to where the
complainant actually resides at the time of
the commission of the offense;

17. “At the law firm of Dubious and
Partners, client reception room
GROUP 8 CYBER LIBEL
PRESENTATION

18. The elements of cyberlibel are:
(a) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition
concerning another;
(b) publication of the charge;
(c) identity of the person defamed; and
(d) existence of malice.
(e)the act must be committed through the use of a
computer system or any similar means which may be
devised in the future,.

19. ROC Rule 110, SEC. 16. Intervention of the
offended party in criminal action.—
Where the civil action for recovery of civil
liability is instituted in the criminal action
pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party
may intervene by counsel in the
prosecution of the offense.

20. At the Free Legal Assistance Group Office
Where the respondent Ms. Grassa meets
with her counsel
GROUP 8 CYBER LIBEL
PRESENTATION

21. Tulfo v People : no culpability could be imputed to
petitioners for alleged offending publication without
doing violence to the concept of privileged
communications implicit in the freedom of the
press.
Columnists cannot be compelled to reveal their
sources, pursuant to Republic Act No. 53, as
amended by Republic Act No. 1477. The
confidentiality of sources serves as their protection.
No law requires the sources of a columnist to
execute an affidavit putting their testimonies in
writing.

22. "ART. 90. Prescription of crimes.—
"Those punishable by a correctional
penalty shall prescribe in ten years; with
the exception of those punishable by
arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in
five years.
"The crime of libel or other similar
offenses shall prescribe in one year.

23. The case progressed into actual litigation.
The above case mirrors the actual case of CA-G.R. CR No.
44991 (July 7, 2022),
which both RTC and the CA found in favor of the plaintiff
private citizen Mr. Keng over the online newssite Rappler,
sustaining the penalty of imprisonment for the defendants
Maria Ressa-Editor In chief and writer Santos.
End of Presentation
GROUP 8 CYBER LIBEL PRESENTATION