Criminal Complaint for Blackmail in the Philippines

(Updated 11 July 2025 – Philippine jurisdiction)

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified Philippine lawyer for guidance on any specific case.

1. What “blackmail” means under Philippine law

Unlike some common-law jurisdictions, the term blackmail does not appear verbatim in the Revised Penal Code (RPC). In Philippine practice it is prosecuted under several overlapping provisions:

Core offense	Statute & Article	Typical fact pattern
Threatening to publish libelous matter to extort money	RPC Art. 356 – “Threatening to publish and offer to prevent such publication for a compensation”	“Pay me ₱50,000 or I will post your compromising photos.”
Grave or light threats coupled with a demand for money/property	RPC Art. 282 (Grave Threats) / Art. 283 (Light Threats)	“Give me your car or I’ll burn your house.”
Cyber-enabled blackmail (e-mail, chat, social media)	R.A. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act), §6 (penalty one degree higher)	Screenshots of chat threats, phishing-based extortion (“sextortion”).
Voyeuristic blackmail	R.A. 9995 (Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act)	Threat to post secretly recorded intimate video.
Partner or family-member extortion	R.A. 9262 (Anti-VAWC Act)	Demand for money under threat of exposing private acts.
Blackmail involving minors	R.A. 7610 & R.A. 9775	Threats to distribute child sexual images unless paid.

Take-away: If the essence of the act is “Pay (or do) something, or I’ll expose/accuse/harm you”, prosecutors choose the most fitting provision(s) above.

2. Elements of the principal offenses

2.1 Article 356 (classic blackmail)

Threat to publish libelous matter or offer to refrain from such publication;
Existence of libelous matter – i.e., an imputation of a discreditable act, crime, vice or defect;
Intent to extort money, ransom, or any valuable consideration;
Threat or offer communicated to the victim.

Notes

Truth of the imputed matter is irrelevant; the gravamen is the use of the threat to obtain gain.
Even an implicit demand suffices (“You know what to do if you don’t want these photos online…”).

2.2 Article 282 (grave threats) – when blackmail involves threat to life, limb or property

Offender threatens the victim with the infliction of a wrong amounting to a crime (e.g., arson, serious physical injuries);
Demand is made for money or any condition;
Threat is serious and deliberate, not merely in jest.

Light threats (Art. 283) cover non-criminal acts or lesser intimidation.

3. Penalties, amendments & prescription

Offense	Basic penalty (post-R.A. 10951, effective 2017)	If committed through ICT (per R.A. 10175 §6)	Prescriptive period*
Art. 356	Arresto mayor (1 mo 1 d – 6 mo) and/or fine ₱40k–₱200k	Prisión correccional (6 mo 1 d – 6 yr) & fine, venue in RTC	5 years (or 10 yr if upgraded)
Art. 282 (1) – with demand	Prisión correccional (6 mo 1 d – 6 yr)	Prisión mayor (6 yr 1 d – 12 yr)	10 years (basic)
Art. 283	Arresto menor (1 d – 30 d) or fine ≤ ₱20k	one degree higher	2 months
R.A. 9995 (blackmail with voyeurism)	Prisión mayor & fine ₱100k–₱500k	N/A (already special law)	12 years

*Art. 90-92 RPC; Act 3326 for special laws. Prescription runs from discovery of the threat (not from actual publication).

4. Jurisdiction & venue

Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC): when the maximum imposable penalty is ≤ 6 years (e.g., Art. 356 without cyber element).
Regional Trial Court (RTC): if the penalty exceeds 6 years or if §6 of the Cybercrime Act applies.
Cybercrime Courts (Special Designated RTCs): exclusive jurisdiction when any element is committed via computer system or the evidence is largely electronic.
Venue lies where the threat was received or where the libelous matter would be published, whichever places the victim at the mercy of the offender.

5. Step-by-step: Filing a criminal complaint

Collect & preserve evidence
- Screenshots, e-mails, SMS, chat logs (export raw files where possible).
- Threat letters, voice messages, bank transfer receipts.
- Execute a Certificate of Authenticity under §2, Rule on Electronic Evidence (REE).
Execute a Complaint-Affidavit (DOJ Circular No. 061-2020 format):
- Narrate facts in chronological order;
- Cite violated articles/acts;
- Attach evidence as annexes (label A, B, C…).
Supporting affidavits of witnesses/forensic examiner (if applicable).
Have all affidavits sworn before an Assistant City/Provincial Prosecutor (or a notary).
File at the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor of the place of venue; pay docket fee (≈ ₱5–₱600 depending on LGU).
Preliminary investigation
- Prosecutor issues subpoena giving respondent 10 days to counter-affidavit;
- Clarificatory hearing optional;
- Prosecutor resolves within 60 days (30 days if inquest).
Information filed in court if probable cause found; warrant or summons issued.
Arraignment & bail (bail = amount in DOJ Bail Bond Guide, e.g., Art. 356 ≈ ₱12,000; cyber-blackmail ≈ ₱48,000).
Pre-trial & trial under the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
Judgment; civil damages may be adjudged in the same action (Art. 100 RPC).

Barangay conciliation? Katarungang Pambarangay is required only if (a) penalty ≤ 1 year and fine ≤ ₱5,000 and (b) parties reside in the same city/municipality and (c) no public peace is seriously threatened. Thus, cyber-blackmail or threats involving libel generally skip barangay proceedings.

6. Evidence tips for cyber-blackmail

Preserve headers/metadata (Ctrl-U on e-mail, export json on Messenger).
Use hash values (SHA-256) when creating forensic images to satisfy §§1-2 REE.
The PNP-ACG and NBI-CCD can perform live entrapment (e.g., controlled payment, monitoring of chat rooms) without needing a cyber-warrant if consented to by the victim (People v. Dado, G.R. 213292, 03 Feb 2021).
If the threat involves sexual images, request an access blocking order under §5 R.A. 9995 in the same criminal case.

7. Civil & special remedies for victims

Independent civil action for defamation or threats (Art. 33 Civil Code) – no need to wait for criminal outcome.
Protection Orders under R.A. 9262 when the extortionist is a partner/spouse.
Preliminary injunction/TRO (Rule 58, Rules of Court) to restrain publication while criminal case is pending.
Asset freeze or anti-money-laundering referral if large ransom paid (AMLA, R.A. 9160).

8. Defences typically raised

Defence	Viability
Truth of the accusation	Not a defence in Art. 356 – threat alone is penalized.
No demand for money	Essential element for Art. 356; but may still be libel or grave threat.
Private warning, not public threat	May negate “intent to publish”, but context matters (tone, timing, repeated demands).
Instigation / entrapment	Entrapment is allowed; successful instigation defence is rare (must show law-enforcers induced the criminal design).
Lack of jurisdiction/venue	Argued where threat was sent abroad or received digitally; courts apply §21, R.A. 10175 (“anywhere in the Philippines”).

9. Selected jurisprudence

Case	G.R. No.	Key doctrine
People v. Castaneda (CA, 29 Jan 1934)	4402-R	Extortion by threatening to expose adultery falls under Art. 356 despite private circulation of the libelous letter.
People v. Pineda (Sup. Ct., 18 Mar 1967)	L-21732	Demand may be implicit; presence of third-party intermediaries still satisfies “communication to victim”.
Reyes v. People (Sup. Ct., 15 Feb 2006)	157720	“Publication” in Art. 356 need not be carried out; consummation occurs upon threat plus demand.
People v. Dado (Sup. Ct., 03 Feb 2021)	213292	Cyber-entrapment by PNP-ACG in sextortion recognized as lawful arrest.

10. Intersection with anti-corruption & public-officer cases

If a public officer extorts under color of office, prosecution may be for Direct Bribery (Art. 210) or RA 3019; blackmail articles are then absorbed.
Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction for officials with Salary Grade 27+.

11. International & cross-border scenarios

Cyber-blackmail sent from abroad: Philippine courts take jurisdiction if the effect (fear, demand) is felt here (Art. 2 (b) RPC; §21 R.A. 10175).
Extradition or Mutual Legal Assistance (MLAT) requests may be channeled through the DOJ-OIA.
Digital evidence from foreign platforms (Meta, Google) obtained via COVERED SERVICE PROVIDER route in Rule on Cybercrime Warrants (A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC).

12. Practical tips

Act fast – statute of limitations for light threats is only 60 days.
Document first, pay never – once ransom is paid, recovery is unlikely and prosecution becomes harder.
Secure mental-health support – victims of “sextortion” often suffer trauma; counselling strengthens testimonial capacity.
Coordinate with law enforcement – do not run DIY stings; possession of marked money without coordination may expose victim to charges.

13. Conclusion

A criminal complaint for blackmail in the Philippines sits at the intersection of defamation, threats, cyber-crime and privacy law. Success depends on:

Correct article selection (Art. 356 vs 282/283 vs special laws),
Timely, forensically sound evidence gathering, and
Strategic filing with the proper prosecutor and court.

Handled properly, Philippine law affords robust remedies—both criminal and civil—to stop extortionists and compensate their victims.