eCodal+

Is Atty. Let Me Be The One To Accept the Warrant correct? Why or why not? (1pt)

Dear Subscriber,

Please be informed that the Practice Exercises have been released. The PDF Copy was sent to ALL subscribers via OrangeDox. The eCodalPro App has also been updated. For iOS users, please update from TestFlight. Please also be informed that the v2 of the Syllabus-based eReviewers will be released by May 31.

Should you be interested to subscribe and avail of the materials, please visit https://www.ecodalplus.com/ecodalpro-subscription.

Please also be informed that the MENTORING Program is still ongoing. Should you be interested to enroll, please visit https://www.ecodalplus.com/Mentoring.

All the best and happy studying!

Dear Subscriber,

Please be informed that the release of the Practice Exercises is moved to MAY 8, Friday. The PDF copy and APP version will then be released the next day, MAY 9.

All the best!

Let your preparations go beyond aiming for the title.

As we celebrate the Labor Day in the Philippines, let us be reminded by Professor Chel Diokno's message to the Bar passers of last year's bar exam for one of our main purpose in this profession:
"Law school is not just for the title; it is a tool to fight for the marginalized. As you strive to pass the bar, remember the goal is to serve our fellow Filipinos."

Soft launch of our humble new firm here in the Queen City of the South. Know more of some of your mentors here :)

eCodalPro App updated with Bar Chair Case Digests. To update, please proceed to the TestFlight App and click Update.

Happy Studying!

Dear Subscriber,

Thank you for your utmost patience. The PDF copies of the Bar Chair Case Digests have now been sent to eligible subscribers via OrangeDox.

As a reminder, only FULL subscribers and those who availed the Add-on for Case Digests may receive a PDF copy. For the rest, you may view the digests at https://www.ecodalpro.com/CaseDigests.

The eCodalPro App updated with the Case Digests is currently under review. Will make further announcements once the review process is complete.

All the best and happy studying!

An email will be sent and an announcement will be posted AFTER the Case Digest PDFs are sent.

Dear Subscriber,

Happy to share that you may now view the digests of the cases penned by your Bar Chair, Justice Gaerlan. Please note that for now, there are 228 digests out of the 252 cases included in the cut-off. Rest assured, the remaining digests will be completed and uploaded by tomorrow and the PDF version will be finally emailed to eligible subscribers.

All the best and Happy Studying!

Please visit https://www.ecodalpro.com/CaseDigests.​ to access the Bar Chair Case Digests.

Too close to be doctrinal. The dissenting opinion is basically four pages long. With due respect, not a lot of substance to be joined upon by almost a majority of the Court.

I submit the best option moving forward is to decriminalize libel in all its form altogether. Impose hefty damages. Libel laws are antithetical to a democratic society.

The (SC) has affirmed its previous ruling that cyber libel prescribes one year from the time it is discovered, holding that “cyber libel” is not a new crime but a form of “libel” under Art. 355 of the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 that is committed through a computer system or other similar means.

In a Resolution written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 denied the separate motions for reconsideration filed by Berteni Cataluña Causing and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

In December 2020, Cotabato Second District Representative Ferdinand L. Hernandez filed a cyber libel complaint with the prosecutor against Causing related to Facebook posts accusing Hernandez of pocketing over PHP 200 million in relief goods for Marawi victims. Hernandez stated he discovered the posts on February 4 and April 29, 2019.

Informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Causing in May 2021. He filed a motion to quash the Informations, arguing that they were already time-barred under the RPC because more than one year had passed since the posts were uploaded.

The RTC denied the motion, ruling that cyber libel prescribes in 12 years under 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘕𝘰. (𝘙𝘈) 10175 or the 𝘊𝘺𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘈𝘤𝘵.

Causing appealed to the SC, which clarified that the prescriptive period for cyber libel is one year from the date of discovery, consistent with traditional libel under the RPC. The Court rejected Causing’s motion to quash the Informations due to insufficient proof that the offense had already prescribed, highlighting that he can present evidence during the trial at the RTC.

Both the OSG and Causing filed separate partial motions for reconsideration.

The OSG argued that the one-year prescriptive period for traditional libel under the RPC should not apply to cyber libel. Instead, it should be 15 years under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, as previously decided by the Supreme Court through an unsigned resolution in Tolentino v. People.

Causing, on the other hand, argued that the prescription for cyber libel should start from the publication date rather than from discovery. He contended that online posts are more widespread than traditional forms of publication. If the discovery rule is applied, cyber libel charges could be filed several years after the post was made, as long as the offended party discovered it later.

The SC rejected both arguments.

Under the RPC, written libel prescribes in one year. There is no law that excludes cyber libel from this one-year period, and Congress has consistently treated libel as having a shorter prescriptive period than other crimes, even when penalties are increased.

The SC reiterated that cyber libel is not a separate crime, but rather libel committed through a computer system. The fact that the Cybercrime Prevention Act imposes a higher penalty for cyber libel does not imply that its prescriptive period should be extended beyond that of traditional libel.

The SC added that when laws on the prescription of crimes are unclear, they must be interpreted in favor of the accused. Since the RPC sets a one-year prescriptive period for cyber libel, it prevails over the 15-year period set in the case of Tolentino v. People, which is an unsigned resolution.

The SC also affirmed that prescription begins upon discovery of the offense, not upon publication. The law clearly states that prescription runs from the time the crime is discovered by the offended party or the authorities.

Seven other Justices joined Justice Inting in the majority. They are:
• Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo
• Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen
• Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa
• Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda
• Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan
• Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez
• Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh

In his Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen argued that the one-year prescription period should apply only to libel cases against private individuals. He added that libel against public figures should be decriminalized, as punishing comments and criticisms directed at public officials discourages free and uninhibited discussion about how those in public office conduct themselves.

In his Concurring Opinion, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa stressed that the prescriptive period for libel has always been fixed at one or two years, never at 10 or more years.

Meanwhile, six other Justices joined Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr. in his dissent:
• Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando
• Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier
• Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario
• Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez
• Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao
• Associate Justice Raul B. Villanueva

In his Concurring and Dissenting opinion, Justice Kho, Jr. agreed with the majority that unsigned resolutions do not lay down doctrines of law but disagreed on the prescriptive period for cyber libel. Since cyber libel is committed through computer systems and is punishable under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, it is a separate crime from libel and the one-year prescriptive period for libel does not apply.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163671

Read the full text of the Resolution at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163636

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163642

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-admin/post.php?p=163650

Read the Concurring and Dissenting OpinionOpinion of Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr. at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163661

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution

Dear Subscriber,

Hope you are having a great weekend.

We're almost there. Thank you for your utmost patience. The Bar Chair Case Digests will be released this week as follows:

Web Version — April 21, Tuesday (for ALL subscribers)
PDF Version — April 22, Wednesday (for eligible subscribers)
App Version — April 23, Thursday (for eligible subscribers)

PS. An old type of subscription will be making a comeback. Will make an announcement next month :)

All the best and happy studying!