Yes. Under Philippine law, you can be investigated and charged for cybercrime even if you don’t have (or don’t use) any social media account. Social media is only one of many “information and communications technology” channels. The key legal question is usually what act was done using a computer system or ICT, not whether you personally maintain Facebook, X, Instagram, TikTok, etc.

This article explains the Philippine legal framework, how cybercrime cases are built even without social media accounts, what prosecutors must prove, common charges, evidence and warrants, jurisdiction/venue rules, penalties, and practical defenses.

1) The core law: the Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175)

The main statute is Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012). It defines cybercrimes, penalizes certain ICT-enabled acts, and provides procedural tools for investigation (data preservation, disclosure, interception rules through court processes, etc.).

Bottom line: RA 10175 does not require a “social media account” as an element of most offenses. Many crimes are complete if they are committed through:

a computer, phone, tablet, or any device capable of data processing/communication;
email, SMS, messaging apps, websites/forums, file-sharing, cloud drives;
online payment systems, e-wallets, banking apps;
malware, phishing pages, spoofed emails, VOIP, or other networked tools.

2) “Cybercrime” vs. “crime committed through ICT”

In Philippine practice, cases often fall into three buckets:

A. Cybercrimes (true cyber offenses) under RA 10175

These are offenses that directly involve computer systems/data, such as:

Illegal access (unauthorized access to a computer system/account)
Illegal interception (intercepting non-public transmissions)
Data interference (damaging, deleting, altering computer data)
System interference (hindering/interrupting a system)
Misuse of devices (tools/passwords designed for committing cyber offenses)
Cybersquatting (bad-faith domain registration resembling another’s name/trademark)

None of these require social media.

B. Computer-related offenses under RA 10175

These are traditional fraud/forgery-type crimes done via computers, e.g.:

Computer-related forgery
Computer-related fraud
Computer-related identity theft

Again, no social media required—these often involve email, OTP interception, spoofed websites, fake bank portals, or e-wallet schemes.

C. Content-related offenses (some overlap with other laws)

These include:

Cyber libel (libel committed through a computer system)
Cybersex (as defined by RA 10175)
Child pornography (often under RA 9775, also referenced in cyber contexts)
Unsolicited commercial communications (subject to conditions/exceptions)

Cyber libel is commonly associated with social media posts, but it can also be committed via blogs, websites, online forums, email blasts, messaging platforms, or other online publication—not only social media.

3) So how can you be charged if you have no social media?

Because the law focuses on conduct + computer system, not the platform. A person without social media can still allegedly commit acts like:

Common non-social-media scenarios

Phishing through email/SMS: sending links to fake login pages for banks/e-wallets.
SIM/OTP attacks: tricking victims to reveal OTPs; SIM swap; hijacking accounts.
Unauthorized access: guessing passwords, using stolen credentials, accessing work systems without authority.
Identity theft: using someone else’s name, photos, IDs, or personal data to transact.
Online fraud: fake online selling via marketplaces, messaging apps, or even just text + payment channel.
Malware/ransomware: deploying harmful software or disrupting systems.
Voyeurism / intimate image sharing: distributing private content via messaging apps or cloud links (often RA 9995 and related provisions).
Threats/harassment: done via SMS, email, messaging apps; sometimes charged under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) with cyber-related angles depending on facts.

Even if you personally never created an account, you can still be implicated through:

use of a phone number, SIM, device, or IP address,
use of someone else’s account (with or without consent),
use of a temporary/throwaway identity,
use of public Wi-Fi or shared devices.

4) Do you need to “own” the account to be liable?

Usually, no. Liability attaches to the person who committed the act, not the registered owner of an account.

But for prosecutors, proving identity is crucial. In many cyber cases, the fight is over:

attribution (who really did it),
intent (was it deliberate, knowing, without authority),
authenticity and integrity of digital evidence.

A person may still be charged if the evidence suggests they:

controlled the device/number used,
benefited from the transaction,
communicated instructions,
received the stolen funds,
or participated as an accomplice/co-conspirator.

5) Key elements prosecutors generally must prove (without relying on social media)

The exact elements depend on the charge, but prosecutors usually need to show:

A covered act (e.g., access without authority, fraud, identity theft, publication of defamatory matter online, etc.)
Use of a computer system / ICT (phone + network typically qualifies)
Mens rea / intent (knowing, deliberate, fraudulent intent, malice in libel, etc.)
Attribution (evidence connecting the accused to the act)

No step here says “must have a social media account.”

6) The “one degree higher” rule and why it matters

RA 10175 includes a penalty rule often summarized as: if certain crimes under the Revised Penal Code are committed through ICT, the penalty may be one degree higher (subject to how the statute and courts apply it to specific offenses and facts).

This is why cases like:

libel (when “cyber libel”),
threats, coercion, fraud-like conduct, may be charged with cyber-related consequences even outside social media, so long as ICT was used in a way that legally qualifies.

7) What laws commonly appear alongside RA 10175

Cybercrime cases in the Philippines are frequently “multi-law” cases. Depending on facts, prosecutors may consider:

Revised Penal Code (RPC): estafa, grave threats, unjust vexation, libel (offline), coercion, etc.
RA 10173 (Data Privacy Act): unauthorized processing, disclosure, negligence in safeguarding personal data, depending on roles and circumstances.
RA 9995 (Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act): recording/sharing private sexual content without consent.
RA 8792 (E-Commerce Act): rules on electronic documents/signatures and certain offenses.
RA 9775 (Anti-Child Pornography Act) and other child protection laws for online sexual exploitation-related cases.
Anti-money laundering / financial regulations (fact-dependent), especially for syndicates and proceeds.

The presence or absence of social media is usually incidental.

8) How investigators identify suspects without social media

If there’s no social media account to subpoena, investigators typically work from other identifiers:

Technical and transactional trails

Phone numbers and SIM registration details (and related subscriber information)
IMEI/device identifiers (fact-dependent and availability-dependent)
IP addresses and connection logs (ISP records)
Bank/e-wallet records (recipient accounts, cash-out trails)
Email headers, server logs, authentication logs
CCTV + delivery logs (for ATM withdrawals, remittance pickups, device purchases)
Marketplace/chat logs (even if not “social media,” many platforms keep records)
Device forensics (messages, browser history, cached pages, screenshots, crypto wallets)

Even a “low-tech” scam done purely through SMS + a cash-out account can yield enough evidence to file a case.

9) Cybercrime warrants and court processes (Philippine procedure)

Cybercrime investigations often use specialized court orders under the Supreme Court’s Rule on Cybercrime Warrants (commonly referenced by its AM number). These can authorize things like:

preservation and disclosure of computer data,
collection of traffic data,
search, seizure, and examination of computer devices,
in certain circumstances, interception or real-time collection (subject to strict requirements).

Practical point: The legitimacy of how data was obtained is often a major battleground. If evidence was gathered without proper legal authority (or outside the warrant’s scope), it may be challenged.

10) Evidence: what courts look for in digital proof

In cybercrime litigation, the defense commonly attacks:

authenticity (is the screenshot/log real?)
integrity (was it altered?)
chain of custody (who handled the device/data?)
hearsay issues (depending on how offered)
proper acquisition (warrant scope, legal process)

Screenshots alone can be risky unless supported by:

device extraction reports,
platform/provider certifications,
corroborating witnesses,
metadata and logs,
financial records and admissions.

11) Can you be charged if someone used your identity or number?

Yes, you can still be charged, because filing a case is easier than winning it. But you may have strong defenses if you can show:

your device/number was stolen, cloned, SIM-swapped, or spoofed,
your credentials were compromised,
you had no control over the account/device,
the trail points to another user.

This is where prompt action helps:

report theft/loss,
request records from telco/e-wallet provider,
preserve your own evidence (texts, emails, timestamps),
document alibis (travel, work logs, witnesses).

12) Liability beyond the “main hacker”: conspiracy, accomplices, and money mules

Even without social media, many cases focus on roles:

the person who created the phishing kit,
the person who sent the messages,
the person who cashed out,
the person who provided bank/e-wallet accounts (“money mule”),
the person who instructed others.

Philippine criminal law recognizes liability for principals, accomplices, accessories, and conspiracy (fact-intensive). In practice, cash-out evidence and communications can be as important as the original intrusion.

13) Jurisdiction and venue: where can the case be filed?

Cyber cases can involve victims in one city, servers abroad, and suspects elsewhere. Philippine rules allow filing in places connected to the offense—often where:

the offended party resides,
the defamatory material was accessed (in some cyber libel contexts),
the damage occurred,
key elements took place.

Venue rules can be technical, and mistakes can be fatal in certain cases—especially content/publication-related offenses.

14) Practical defenses (non-social-media cyber cases)

These are common defense themes, depending on facts:

Mistaken identity / weak attribution IP address ≠ person; device could be shared; number could be spoofed.
No “without authority” element (for illegal access) Access was authorized, within job scope, or consented.
No fraudulent intent (for fraud/estafa-type cases) Transaction disputes aren’t automatically crimes.
Evidence issues Illegal search, invalid warrant, out-of-scope seizure, broken chain of custody, unreliable screenshots.
Third-party compromise Malware, credential stuffing, SIM swap, account takeover.

Because cyber cases are evidence-heavy, many are won or lost on procedure + proof integrity, not just narratives.

15) FAQs

“If I don’t have Facebook, can I still be charged with cyber libel?”

Potentially yes, if the alleged defamatory “publication” happened through another computer-based channel (e.g., a blog, website, forum, or even certain mass distributions). But cyber libel has specific elements (including identification of the offended party, defamatory imputation, publication, and malice, with nuances for privileged communications).

“If I only used text messages, can that be cybercrime?”

Text messages can be part of cyber-enabled schemes (fraud, identity theft, OTP theft). Whether it’s charged specifically under RA 10175 or under the RPC/other laws depends on the exact acts, evidence, and prosecutorial theory.

“Can I be charged just because my name is on a SIM registration or bank account?”

You can be investigated and even charged, but conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Still, being the registered holder can create strong suspicion—especially if money flowed through your account.

16) Takeaways

A social media account is not required to be charged with cybercrime in the Philippines.
What matters is the act and its connection to a computer system/ICT, plus proof identifying the accused.
Many cyber cases are built from phone number trails, IP logs, device forensics, and financial records, not social media.
Strong cases often hinge on proper warrants and reliable digital evidence; defenses often challenge attribution and procedure.

17) If you’re facing a real situation

If you (or someone you know) is being accused, preserve evidence immediately (devices, messages, receipts, emails, transaction histories) and consult a Philippine-licensed lawyer experienced in cybercrime and digital evidence. Timing matters because logs and platform records may be retained only for limited periods, and early legal steps can affect what can be lawfully obtained and used in court.