Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code does not include “online defamation”- “Reading Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, “similar means” could not have included “online defamation” under the statutoty construction rule of noscitur a sociis. Under this rule, where a particular word or phrase is ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible to various meanings, its correct construction may be made clear and specific by considering the company of words in which it is founded or with which it is associated.
In Article 355, the associated words are “writing,” “printing,” “litography,” “engraving,” “radio,” “phonograph,” “painting,” “theatrical exhibition,” and “cinematic exhibition,” clearly excluding “computer systems or other similar means which may be derived in the future” specifically added in Article 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act. If it were true that Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code already includes libel made through computer systems, then Congress had no need to legislate Article Article 4( c )(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act, for the latter legal provisions will be superfluous. That Congress had to legislate Article 4 (c )(4) means that libel done through computer system, i.e. cyber libel, is an additional means of committing libel, punishable only under the Cybercrime Prevention Act.
For these reasons, an allegedly libelous Facebook post made may only be punished under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, not under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code. Since the Facebook post complained of was made in 2001, a year before the Cybercrime Prevention Act was passed, there was no libel punishable under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege – there is no crime when there is no law punishing it. The prosecution in this case correctly withdrew the information it had filed with the trial court.” (Citations omitted)[1]
[1] Penalosa v. Ocampo, G.R. No. 230299, April 26, 2023