Legal Remedies for Negative Online Publicity: Libel, Cyber-libel, Grave Coercion. Grave Threats, Unjust Vexation, Abuse of Rights

1. DEALINGWITH
NEGATIVE
ONLINE
PUBLICITY
Legal Remedies, Case Study, and
Other Matters

2. • “Speak slowly and carry a big stick.” –Theodore
Roosevelt

3. • “Power comes from the barrel of a gun.” – Mao Zedong

4. Legal Remedy
• Criminal Case
• Libel
• Cyber-Libel
• GraveThreats
• Grave Coercion
• UnjustVexation
• Civil Case
• Abuse of Rights
• Damages

5. INTERNET
• "The culture associated with internet media is distinct from that of print.The
internet is characterized as encouraging a freewheeling, anything-goes writing
style. In a sense, they are a world apart in terms of quickness of the reader’s
reaction to defamatory statements posted in cyberspace, facilitated by one-
click reply options offered by the networking site as well as by the speed with
which such reactions are disseminated down the line to other internet users."
("Disini vs. Secretary ofJustice," G.R. No. 203335 February 11, 2014)

6. LIBEL
• Under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), an accused may be held
liable for libel if the following elements concur: (a) imputation of a
discreditable act or condition to another; (b) publication of the imputation;
(c) identity of the person defamed; and (d) existence of malice. Absent one
of these elements precludes the commission of the crime of libel.

7. Elements of Libel
• Imputation of a vice or defect

8. Elements of Libel
• Publication
• Disclosure to a third party

9. Elements of Libel
• Identity of the person defamed

10. Elements
• Existence of malice

11. MALICE
• In libel, the existence of malice is essential as it is an element of the crime.
The law presumes that every imputation relieves that prosecution of the
burden of proving that the imputations were made in malice.

12. MALICE: PUBLIC FIGURES
• In convicting the defendants, the lower courts paid particular heed to Article 354 of the
Revised Penal Code, which provides that "every defamatory imputation is presumed to be
malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is
shown…".
• We hold that this provision, as applied to public figures complaining of criminal libel, must
be construed in light of the constitutional guarantee of free expression, and this Court’s
precedents upholding the standard of actual malice with the necessary implication that a
statement regarding a public figure if true is not libelous.The provision itself allows for such
leeway, accepting as a defense "good intention and justifiable motive."The exercise of free
expression, and its concordant assurance of commentary on public affairs and public
figures, certainly qualify as "justifiable motive," if not "good intention.“
(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_128959_2005.html#fnt72)

13. LIBEL

14. CYBER-LIBEL
• Cyber libel is committed in the same manner as libel except for the
medium of its commission which is through a computer system or
device.

15. "AYERTEST": WHO ARE PUBLIC FIGURES?

16. WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?

17. REMEDY AVAILABLETO PUBLIC FIGURES
• RaffyTulfo vs. Atty. Carlos So

18. Prescription
• 12 years – due to increase in penalty and covered by special law (Act 3326)
• 1 year like Libel

19. ABUSE OF
RIGHTS
• "In the sphere of our law on human relations, the victim of a
wrongful act or omission, whether done willfully or
negligently, is not left without any remedy or recourse to
obtain relief for the damage or injury he sustained.
Incorporated into our civil law are not only principles of
equity but also universal moral precepts which are designed
to indicate certain norms that spring from the fountain of
good conscience and which are meant to serve as guides for
human conduct. First of these fundamental precepts is the
principle commonly known as "abuse of rights" under Article
19 of the CivilCode. It provides that " Every person must, in
the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his
duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and observe
honesty and good faith."x x x32The elements of abuse of
rights are as follows: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2)
which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of
prejudicing or injuring another." (CALIFORNIACLOTHING
INC. and MICHELLES.YBAÑEZ v. SHIRLEY G.QUIÑONES
G.R. No. 175822 October 23, 2013)

20. ABUSE OF
RIGHTS
• "This article, known to contain what is commonly referred
to as the principle of abuse of rights, sets certain standards
which must be observed not only in the exercise of one's
rights, but also in the performance of one's duties.These
standards are the following: to act with justice; to give
everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith.
The law, therefore, recognizes a primordial limitation on all
rights; that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct
set forth in Article 19 must be observed. A right, though by
itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such,
may nevertheless become the source of some illegality.
When a right is exercised in a manner which does not
conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results
in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed
for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. But
while Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for the
government of human relations and for the maintenance of
social order, it does not provide a remedy for its violation.
Generally, an action for damages under either Article 20 or
Article 21 would be proper." (ALFONSOT.YUCHENGCO vs.
THE MANILA CHRONICLE PUBLISHING
CORPORATIONG.R. No. 184315 November 28, 2011)

21. Bad Faith
• "Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or
negligence, it imports a dishonest purpose or some
moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a
breach of known duty through some motive or
interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of
fraud." (ALEJANDROV.TANKEH vs.
DEVELOPMENT BANK OFTHE PHILIPPINES G.R.
No. 171428 November 11, 2013)

22. GRAVETHREAT
• the crime of grave threats which is not subject to a condition are as follows:
(1) that a person threatened another with the infliction of a wrong; (2) that
such wrong amounted to a crime; and (3) that the threat was not subject to
a condition

23. GRAVETHREAT (sent via e-mail)

24. LIGHTTHREATS
The elements of Light Threats are: 1. That the offender makes a threat to
commit a wrong; 2. That the wrong does not constitute a crime; 3. That
there is a demand for money or that other condition is imposed, even
though not unlawful; 4. That the offender has attained his purpose or,
that he has not attained his purpose.

25. GRAVE COERCION
• The crime of Grave Coercion is committed by any person who,
without any authority of law, shall, by means of violence, threats, or
intimidation, prevent another from doing something not prohibited by
law, or compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right
or wrong.

26. GRAVE COERCION
• In the prosecution for grave coercion, the following elements must be
proven: (1) that a person is prevented by another from doing
something not prohibited by law, or compelled to do something against
his will, be it right or wrong; (2) that the prevention or compulsion is
effected by violence, threats or intimidation; and (3) that the person
who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so, or in
other words, that the restraint is not made under authority of law or in
the exercise of any lawful right.

27. UNJUSTVEXATION • “Natutwa ako sa dati kong kumpanya – ung mga
empleyado nila binabawasan ang sweldo ng CASH BOND
bawat sweldo.Tapos pag me emergency sila at need nila
ang pera e kailangan pa nilang magmakaawa na
mkabawas don sa cash bond. Halimbawa nakaipon sila ng
25k n cashbond, ang iaaproved lng ng president e 3k.Tsk
tsk tsk. Diba sa empleyado un???Tpos bago mkuha ung
cashbond need magresign ng empleyado. Ang masama pa
hindi cnsama ung bank interest.Wag mag alala nagfile ng
tayo ng complaint sa DOLE NCR pra ipakansela and DO18
registration nila. Ipapainspect ulit natin pra un milyung
milyon cash bond e maisauli sa mga empleyado. Newei,
CASH BOND IS ILLEGAL....... Dapat fair lang....." (CA-G.R.
CR NO. 43470 dated May 18, 2021)

28. UNJUSTVEXATION "The evidence of the Prosecution rests mainly on the
testimony of the private complainant and the screen shot of
the alleged post of the accused in his Facebook account which
he (private complainant) identified in court.The Facebook post
of the accused was shown and relayed to him by his secretary
Daisy Morales (Morales), as he himself has no facebook
account of his own. It was her (sic) secretary who told him
that “DRACHIR ONEDNOC” is Richard Condeno. As Daisy
Morales (Morales) was not presented, the element of
publication by, through and with the use of information and
communication technologies, like the Facebook, was not
proven. Nonetheless, the elements of unjust vexation are still
adequately established by evidence."

29. UNJUSTVEXATION • Unjust vexation, as defined and penalized under the second
paragraph of Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code
• is broad enough to include any human conduct which, although not
productive of some physical or material harm, would unjustly
annoy or irritate an innocent person.
• The paramount question is whether the offender’s act causes
annoyance, irritation, torment, distress or disturbance to the mind
of the person to whom it is directed. (People v. SalvinoSumingwa,
G.R. No. 183619, October 13, 2009)
• In other words, unjust vexation may exist without inflicting any
physical or material harm, without any compulsion or restraint,
without the physical presence of the offended party at the time the
crime was being committed. In the advent of the Cybercrime
Prevention Act, unjust vexation can also be committed through the
use of information technology such as social media, or in this case,
the Facebook platform.

30. EVIDENTIARY
MATTERS
• "Pursuant to Section 1 of the Rules of Electronic Evidence,
the Facebook photographs as well as the printed copies of
Facebook screen shots presented by the petitioner-appellee
should have been identified, explained or authenticated by
the person who made the recording or by some other
competent person who testified on the accuracy thereof. As
to who is the person who shall be considered to have made
the recording of the photographs and who can testify on
their accuracy, we opine that they could be the Facebook
account users themselves who uploaded the photos to the
Online Social Network (OSN) Facebook -- the respondent-
appellant, EEE, FFF or GGG, or in their absence, some other
witnesses or friends of the petitioner-appellee from whom
she was able to access the Facebook accounts of the
foregoing Facebook account owners."

31. EVIDENTIARY
MATTERS
• "While the Facebook photographs presented by the
petitioner-appellee, depicting the respondent-appellant's
illicit affairs with several women were not authenticated in
accordance with A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, the same cannot be
said to be totally without evidentiary value. Although they
may not have been properly authenticated in accordance
with the Rules on Electronic Evidence, the same can be
considered corroborative evidence, and thus, its
admissibility or inadmissibility should not diminish the
probative value of the other evidence, such as judicial
affidavit of the petitioner-appellee herself, containing
allegations and statements which have undergone cross-
examination." (CA-G.R.CV No. 108001 dated t.
Promulgated:Jan 30, 2018)

32. CASE STUDY

33. CASE STUDY

34. PRELIMINARY STEPS
• Document
• Send Cease and Desist Letter
• Prepare Complaint in Judicial Affidavit Form (to be filed before the Office of
the Prosecutor)
• Prepare to Compromise

36. FACTORTO CONSIDER (Economics of
Litigation)
• Cost and Expenses
• Time and Resources
• Trend toward Civil Liability

37. LAW AS AWEAPON
“Let me tell you something, I didn't become a lawyer because I like the law,
the law sucks. It's boring, but it can also be used as a weapon.You want to
bankrupt somebody? Cost him everything he's worked for? Make his wife
leave him, even make his kids cry...yeah, we can do that.”
- Richard Fish