Practice question
In a cyberlibel case, the accused moves to quash solely because the online post is more than one year old. He supplies no evidence establishing when the offended party, authorities, or their agents discovered it. Under Causing's April 8, 2026 main resolution, which is correct?
- The upload date conclusively establishes discovery for everyone.
- Cyberlibel always prescribes in fifteen years.
- The period is one year from discovery under the governing rules; online posting alone does not establish constructive notice and conclusively prove prescription.
- Cyberlibel never prescribes.
- Every online reader is deemed to have read the post on upload.
Legal references
- Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, specified articles, as amended: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/28/20426; Articles 353–355, 358–359 and 361.
- RA 10951, current amended RPC provisions and monetary thresholds: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2017/ra_10951_2017.html; amended honor-offense fines.
- Orillo v People, G.R. No. 206905, January 30, 2023, main decision, libel and qualified privilege: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/jan2023/gr_206905_2023.html
- Causing v People, G.R. No. 258524, April 8, 2026, en banc main resolution on reconsideration, cyberlibel prescription and discovery: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2026/apr2026/gr_258524_2026.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.