Practice question
An allegedly defamatory post was uploaded in 2024. In a 2026 motion to quash, its author relies solely on the upload date to prove prescription; the prosecution disputes when the offended party or authorities first discovered it, and the author supplies no evidence of discovery. Which approach follows Causing’s April 8, 2026 resolution?
- The upload date conclusively proves discovery on the same date
- The one-year period is abandoned whenever discovery is disputed
- The mere existence of a post eliminates the need for evidence
- Discovery is factual; upload alone does not establish that the one-year period has run, and the prescription claim requires the relevant evidence
- The claim must use a fifteen-year period instead
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2012/ra_10175_2012.html — RA 10175, Chapter II, sections 4–7; read subject to Disini and subsequent controlling decisions.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_203335_2014.html — Disini, Jr. v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, main decision, operative declaration on sections 4(c)(3), 4(c)(4), 5 and 7.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_203335_2014.html — Disini, G.R. No. 203335, April 22, 2014 main reconsideration resolution affirming the decision.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2026/apr2026/gr_258524_2026.html — Causing v. People, G.R. No. 258524, April 8, 2026 main reconsideration resolution, one-year cyberlibel prescription from discovery and need for evidence.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.