Q. Can there be two (2) separate prosecutions of libel under Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and online libel under R.A. 10175 (An Act defining and imposing penalty on Cybercrime)?
Answer: No because it will violate the proscription against double jeopardy. It can be argued that as a rule a person who performed an unlawful act can be prosecuted under the Revised Penal Code and another under RA 10175 because Revised Penal Code is a general law while RA 10175 is a special law. However, this is not applicable to "Online Libel". In case a person published a material on print, said to be libelous, is again posted online or vice versa, that identical material cannot be the subject of two separate charges for libel.
This is so because the two offenses, one a violation of the RPC and the other a violation of R.A. 10175"involve essentially the same elements" and "they are in fact one and the same offense". The Supreme Court held in "Disini, Jr. et. al. vs. Secretary of Justice, et. al." (G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014), held that: "Online libel as to which, charging the offender under both Section 4(c)(4) of Republic Act 10175 and Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code constitutes a violation of the proscription against double jeopardy."
Q. Can a person who receive a libelous post and react on it be criminally liable under Online Libel"
Answer: No. As a general rule, he is not criminally liable. In the same decided case, the Supreme Court held also that there is NO criminal liability to those persons who simply receive the libelous post and react to it.
However if the "comment" is not a mere reaction to the original posting but creates an altogether new defamatory story against a person such "comment" is considered an original posting published on the internet. The one posted said libelous comment is liable for online libel.