In the Philippine legal landscape, defamation—whether committed through traditional means or online—is both a criminal offense under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (R.A. 10175), and a ground for a civil action for damages under the Civil Code. When photos are involved, the potential for damage is often magnified due to the viral nature of visual content.
1. The Legal Framework
Defamation is the public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice, defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person.
- Libel (Art. 353, RPC): Defamation committed by means of writing, printing, or similar means.
- Online Libel (Sec. 4(c)(4), R.A. 10175): Libel committed through a computer system. This carries a penalty one degree higher than traditional libel.
- Civil Liability (Art. 33, Civil Code): An independent civil action for damages can be filed entirely separate from the criminal case.
2. Types of Damages Recoverable
Under Philippine law, a victim of defamation or online libel involving photos may pray for several types of damages. The amount is not fixed by a "price list" but is determined by the court's discretion based on the circumstances.
Moral Damages (Art. 2217 & 2219, Civil Code)
This is the most common award in defamation cases. It is intended to compensate for physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, and social humiliation.
- Context of Photos: Photos often trigger higher moral damages because images are more visceral and easily shared than text, leading to greater "social humiliation."
Exemplary or Corrective Damages (Art. 2229, Civil Code)
These are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. In libel cases, these are usually awarded if the defendant acted with actual malice—that is, with knowledge that the imputation was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.
Actual or Compensatory Damages (Art. 2199, Civil Code)
This covers the pecuniary (monetary) loss actually suffered and duly proven.
- Example: If a professional photographer or model loses a specific contract because a defamatory photo ruined their reputation, the value of that lost contract can be claimed. Unlike moral damages, these must be proven with receipts or concrete evidence.
Nominal Damages (Art. 2221, Civil Code)
Awarded when the court finds a violation of the plaintiff’s right (e.g., the right to reputation) but the specific loss cannot be quantified or proven.
Attorney’s Fees and Litigation Expenses
These may be recovered if the court finds it just and equitable, especially when exemplary damages are awarded.
3. Determining the "Amount" of Damages
There is no "fixed rate" for libel in the Philippines. However, Supreme Court jurisprudence provides the factors that influence the amount:
| Factor | Impact on Amount |
|---|---|
| Social Standing | A person with a high public profile or professional reputation (e.g., a CEO or a doctor) may be awarded higher moral damages because the "besmirching" is more widespread. |
| Reach/Virality | For online libel, the number of shares, likes, or the platform's reach (e.g., a post on a page with millions of followers) can increase the award. |
| Nature of the Photo | Edited ("photoshopped") images intended to mock or sexually suggestive photos typically lead to higher damages due to the severity of the malice. |
| Financial Capacity | While damages shouldn't bankrupt a defendant, the court considers the defendant's ability to pay to ensure the "corrective" nature of the award is felt. |
Typical Ranges in Jurisprudence
While every case is unique, historical Philippine rulings show a wide spectrum:
- Private Individuals: Moral damages often range from ₱20,000 to ₱100,000.
- Public Figures/Professionals: Awards can reach ₱500,000 to millions in high-profile cases where significant professional harm is proven.
4. The Role of Photos in Evidence
In the digital age, a photo is often considered "conclusive" evidence of the imputation.
- Contextual Defamation: A photo that is innocent on its own can become defamatory through its caption or tags.
- Juxtaposition: Placing a person’s photo next to an article about a crime they did not commit is a common ground for libel suits.
- Presumption of Malice: If the imputation is defamatory, malice is often presumed by law, even if the photo used was "real," if it was used specifically to discredit the person.
5. Recent Trends: The "Fine Instead of Imprisonment" Rule
Under Supreme Court Administrative Circular 08-2008, judges are encouraged to impose a fine rather than imprisonment for libel if the circumstances show that the defendant is not a habitual offender. This does not, however, decrease the civil liability (the money paid to the victim). In many online libel cases, the civil damages awarded are significantly higher than the criminal fine paid to the state.