MANILA - The Supreme Court said courts may impose the alternative penalty of fine instead of imprisonment in an en banc decision denying the petition for review on certiorari filed by the People of the Philippines vs. Jomerito Soliman.

In the decision promulgated on April 25, 2023, the court noted that the petition filed by the Office of the Solicitor General claimed that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion when it affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court convicting Soliman for online libel and sentencing him to pay a fine of P50,000.

Soliman was charged for online libel in 2018 for a Facebook post against then Department of Agriculture assistant secretary Waldo Carpio.

Soliman alluded in his post that Carpio took favors and unduly delayed the release of his Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance.

In imposing the penalty of fine only, the RTC invoked Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 08-2008 or the Guidelines in the Observance of a Rule of Preference in the Imposition of Penalties in Libel Cases, which permits the imposition of fine rather than imprisonment.

The People then filed an appeal before the CA which subsequently denied the the petition, prompting the petition before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court noted that the penalty for online libel, which is one degree higher than traditional libel, ranges from P40,000 to P1,500,000.

“In conclusion, the CA correctly found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC when the latter court found Soliman guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of online libel, and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of payment of a fine in the amount of P50,000,” the court said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio Kho, Jr.

In his concurring opinion Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo noted that since Soliman no longer filed an appeal and had paid the fine, the judgment against him has attained finality.

“As a rule, the prosecution can no longer move to increase the imposed penalty even if it be erroneous, unless the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion,” Gesmundo said.