Cyber Harassment and Defamation on Social Media: How to File a Case in the Philippines (RA 10175)

This practical guide is written for readers in the Philippines. It summarizes the laws, procedure, evidence rules, penalties, and remedies you’ll need to know to pursue a case involving online harassment or defamation (“cyberlibel”). It’s general information, not legal advice; for a specific situation, consult counsel.

1) The Legal Map: What laws actually apply?

Core law:

RA 10175 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. It punishes certain crimes when committed by, through, and with the use of information and communications technologies (ICT). It also raises by one degree the penalties of crimes under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) if done through ICT (Sec. 6).

Often-relevant companion laws:

Revised Penal Code (RPC):
- Libel (Art. 355) – written defamation (now includes online via RA 10175).
- Slander (Art. 358) – oral defamation (sometimes relevant for voice/video).
- Unjust vexation, grave threats, grave/coercion – depending on conduct.
RA 11313 – Safe Spaces Act (SSA): Gender-Based Online Sexual Harassment (GBOH) (e.g., lewd messages, sexist slurs, threats of rape, non-consensual sexual comments/images targeting a person’s gender) with criminal and administrative penalties; also allows protection orders.
RA 9995 – Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act: Non-consensual sharing of intimate images/videos, even if originally consensually taken.
RA 11930 – Anti-OSAEC and CSAEM Law: Online sexual abuse or exploitation of children (very strict, severe penalties).
RA 9262 – Anti-VAWC: Violence against women and their children, including electronic harassment or stalking by a spouse/partner or former partner; protection orders available.
RA 10173 – Data Privacy Act: Unauthorized processing or disclosure of personal data; administrative/criminal liability (complaints go to the National Privacy Commission).
A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC – Rules on Electronic Evidence (REE): Governs admissibility and authentication of digital evidence in Philippine courts.
A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC – Rule on Cybercrime Warrants: Sets procedures for WDCD (Warrant to Disclose Computer Data), WSSECD (Warrant to Search, Seize, and Examine Computer Data), WICD (Warrant to Intercept Computer Data), etc.

Constitutional backdrop and key rulings:

The Supreme Court (in Disini v. Secretary of Justice) upheld cyberlibel’s constitutionality but struck down warrantless content takedown and real-time data collection without sufficient safeguards. In practice, content blocking/removal requires a court order (platforms may of course remove under their own policies).
Courts have repeatedly cautioned against criminalizing mere “likes” or passive interactions; liability hinges on publication and authorship or other active participation. (Sharing/reposting with your own defamatory text can create liability.)

2) What conduct is covered?

“Cyber harassment” is not one single offense in the RPC. Online harassment is usually prosecuted under one or more of these:

Cyberlibel (defamatory written statements posted online; see §3).
Gender-Based Online Sexual Harassment (RA 11313) – lewd/sexualized, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic messages; sexual threats; non-consensual sharing of sexualized content; doxxing with a gendered dimension.
Grave threats, grave coercion, unjust vexation – depending on the manner and severity of the harassment.
Anti-Voyeurism / OSAEC – if intimate images, minors, or sexual exploitation are involved.
VAWC – if the harasser is/was your spouse/partner and the acts cause emotional/psychological distress.

“Defamation” (libel vs slander) in the online setting

Defamation is the umbrella; online written defamation is typically libel; spoken (live audio) may be slander, but the online environment often still ends up in libel territory due to permanence and “publication.”

3) Cyberlibel 101 (RA 10175 + RPC Article 355)

Elements you must prove

Defamatory imputation — the post imputes a crime, vice, defect, or any act/omission tending to dishonor, discredit, or contempt.
Publication — communicated to someone other than the person defamed (a post visible to others suffices).
Identity — the person defamed is identifiable (by name, photo, username, description).
Malice — presumed in libel (Article 354), but defeated by privileged communication or by showing good motives and justifiable ends. Public officials/figures also face actual malice standards in many contexts (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of truth).

Defenses and mitigating factors

Truth + good motives/justifiable ends (truth alone is not always enough in criminal libel).
Qualified privilege (e.g., fair comment on matters of public interest; reports of official proceedings made in good faith).
Lack of publication (e.g., purely private exchange).
Retraction (not a complete defense but may mitigate penalties/damages).
No identifiability.
No malice (rebut the presumption).

Who can be liable?

Authors/posters of the defamatory content.
Editors/“publishers” in an online news context can be impleaded under Article 360 (careful with responsible officers of media entities).
Sharers/reposters/commenters can be liable if they republish or add their own defamatory content; mere “liking” is not, by itself, criminal libel.
Platforms generally aren’t criminally liable unless they actively participate or defy lawful court orders (separate offenses can apply for non-compliance).

Penalties and prescription

Penalty: Because of RA 10175 Sec. 6, cyberlibel is one degree higher than libel. Practically, this means possible imprisonment of 4 years, 2 months and 1 day up to 8 years, plus fines (libel fines were increased by RA 10951; courts have discretion).
Where to file / venue: Article 360 rules apply—typically where the offended party resides (if a private individual) or where a public officer holds office, or where first published.
Prescription (statute of limitations): Courts have treated cyberlibel as an offense under a special law subject to longer prescription than traditional libel. Many practitioners now work off a 15-year prescriptive period for cyberlibel (check latest jurisprudence for your case strategy).

4) Jurisdiction and extraterritorial reach

Territorial: Philippine courts have jurisdiction if any element of the crime occurs here, or if any computer system used is located here.
Extraterritorial: RA 10175 allows prosecution of offenses committed outside the Philippines if they involve Philippine systems, data, or nationals, but evidence and service provider compliance typically require court-issued cybercrime warrants and international cooperation (MLAT).

5) Evidence: How to capture, preserve, and authenticate

Golden rule: Think admissibility from Day 1. Digital evidence must be reliable, authentic, and unaltered.

Collecting the content

Full-frame screenshots & screen recordings that capture URL, handle, time/date, device clock, and entire thread (not just a single comment).
Save the source: Download the post/page where possible; save HTML, PDF, and original media files (images/videos) with metadata.
Hash important files (e.g., SHA-256) and keep a simple log (who captured, when, how, device used).
Do not edit images or videos; if redaction is needed for filing, keep the originals intact and produce a redaction log.

Proving authenticity under the Rules on Electronic Evidence

Affidavit of the person who captured the screenshots/recordings explaining the process.
Device/browser details and steps used to access and capture the content.
Platform records: Through law enforcement and a WDCD/WSSECD, prosecutors can request subscriber info, IP logs, and content from service providers.
Chain of custody: Label, store, and track who handled the data and when.

Preservation by service providers

RA 10175 requires data preservation (traffic/subscriber data for at least 6 months, extendable by court order). Act fast: ask investigators to issue preservation requests early.

6) Non-court takedown vs court-ordered removal

No unilateral government “takedowns”: The Supreme Court struck down the DOJ’s prior summary takedown power.
Platform routes: Report the violative post/account via Facebook/Instagram/X/TikTok/YouTube tools. Attach police blotter/prosecutor stamp or court orders when available—platforms respond faster to official documentation.
Court orders/injunctions: In strong cases (e.g., revenge porn, credible threats), counsel can seek injunctive relief or protection orders (SSA/VAWC) directing respondents to cease contact and remove content; courts may also direct compliance by ISPs/hosts when properly impleaded or served.

7) Filing a criminal case: Step-by-step

A) Decide the correct offense(s)

Defamation? → Cyberlibel.
Sexualized or gendered harassment? → RA 11313 (GBOH); possibly cyberlibel too.
Threats, doxxing, blackmail? → Grave threats/coercion, extortion, unlawful access if hacking occurred.
Intimate images? → RA 9995 (and SSA if gender-based), possibly VAWC or OSAEC (for minors).

B) Gather your dossier (before seeing the prosecutor)

Your Complaint-Affidavit (see outline below).
Annexes: screenshots/recordings, full thread captures, copies of your IDs, witnesses’ affidavits, doctor/psych reports (for damages/VAWC), proof of residency (for venue), and any police blotter.
A digital copy (USB) of annexes in their original formats.

C) Where to go

Option 1 – Law enforcement first:
- PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG) or NBI Cybercrime Division can investigate, issue preservation requests, and help the prosecutor secure cybercrime warrants.
Option 2 – Direct to the City/Provincial Prosecutor:
- File your Complaint-Affidavit with annexes in the proper venue (see §3). Prosecutors can also endorse to PNP/NBI for digital forensics.

D) Prosecutor’s investigation (Rule 112, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)

Filing of complaint and annexes.
Subpoena to the respondent with copies of evidence.
Counter-Affidavit (respondent) and Reply/Rejoinder (as allowed).
Resolution (probable cause or dismissal).
If probable cause: filing of the Information in the proper trial court (usually RTC for cyberlibel given the penalty).

E) After filing in court

Arrest warrant or summons (depending on assessment).
Bail (cyberlibel is bailable).
Arraignment, pre-trial, trial (presentation of digital evidence, witnesses, forensic experts).
Judgment; appeals are available.

8) Filing a civil case (damages and injunction)

You may:

File a separate civil action for damages under the Civil Code (e.g., Art. 33, independent civil action for defamation/insult; claim moral, exemplary, temperate damages and attorney’s fees).
Or reserve civil action in the criminal case.
Seek injunctive relief to stop continuing harm (e.g., restraining further posts, compelling removal).
Under SSA and VAWC, apply for Protection Orders (Barangay/Temporary/Permanent), which can include no-contact and online restraining terms.

9) If the harasser is anonymous or overseas

“John Doe” complaints are permissible when identity is unknown; ask investigators to pursue WDCD (subscriber info), IP logs, and, where needed, MLAT requests to foreign platforms.
Preserve first; identify later: time matters because platforms roll their logs.
Expect delays in cross-border data—plan for interim reliefs (platform reporting, protective orders).

10) Practical checklist for victims

Immediately

Document everything (see §5).
Report to the platform; keep ticket numbers and responses.
Tell someone you trust; if threats are credible, call local police.
For sexualized or intimate-image harms, avoid resharing; keep originals for evidence; consider discreet legal takedown strategy.

Within days

Consult counsel or visit PNP-ACG/NBI-CCD for guidance and preservation letters.
Draft your Complaint-Affidavit and prepare annexes.
Medical/psychological consult if you suffered anxiety, loss of sleep, depression—these support damages and, in VAWC/SSA cases, protection orders.

Ongoing

Do not engage with the harasser publicly; avoid statements that could complicate litigation.
Review your own posts; delete anything that could be misread as threats or admissions (but never destroy potential evidence).
Keep a log of new incidents (date/time, URL, what happened, witnesses).

11) Complaint-Affidavit outline (criminal)

Heading/Title (Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor, venue).
Parties and addresses (establish venue).
Affiant’s identity (ID, citizenship, residence).
Narration of facts in chronological order (who posted what, where, when; include URLs, dates, times, screenshots references as Annexes).
Elements of the offense (map facts to elements of cyberlibel, SSA, VAWC, threats, etc.).
Evidence (list of annexes; original digital media available).
Damages suffered (emotional, reputational, financial).
Reliefs prayed for (filing of appropriate Informations; issuance of subpoenas; preservation/disclosure orders via cybercrime warrants; no-contact conditions if applicable).
Verification & jurat (sworn before the prosecutor or a notary).

(Tip: Number exhibits as Annex “A”, “A-1”, etc. Include a simple index.)

12) Penalties (quick guide)

Cyberlibel: Imprisonment one degree higher than traditional libel (commonly understood as 4 years, 2 months and 1 day up to 8 years) plus fines (libel fines increased by RA 10951; courts exercise discretion).
SSA (GBOH): Fines and imprisonment vary by gravity and recidivism; community service, counseling, and protection orders are possible.
Anti-Voyeurism, VAWC, OSAEC: Often heavier penalties, including no-bail scenarios in OSAEC.

13) Key pitfalls and pro tips

Venue mistakes cause dismissals. Anchor venue to Article 360: complainant’s residence (private person) or public officer’s official station; or place of first publication.
Prescription: Be mindful of limits; file promptly. Cyberlibel is treated as having a longer window than traditional libel (practically, many lawyers use 15 years).
Don’t “improve” evidence. Any edits can draw authenticity objections.
Don’t rely solely on screenshots. Back them up with page archives, original files, and, where possible, platform records through law enforcement.
Be careful with counterspeech. Venting online may create counter-claims.
For minors: Use child-sensitive procedures; notify DSWD as needed.
For workplace/school cases: SSA requires internal mechanisms; file there and pursue criminal/administrative routes as appropriate.

14) Frequently asked questions

Q: Can I sue everyone who “shared” the post? A: You may only pursue those who republished defamatory content with intent/malice. Passive “likes” are not a crime. Each case is fact-specific.

Q: Can the DOJ order Facebook to delete the post? A: No. Government needs a court order. Platforms may voluntarily remove content under their policies.

Q: I don’t know who’s behind a dummy account. Can I still file? A: Yes. File a John Doe complaint and ask investigators/prosecutors to seek WDCD/WSSECD and preservation orders to unmask the user.

Q: Is truth a complete defense? A: In criminal libel, truth must usually come with good motives and justifiable ends. In civil defamation, truth is generally a complete defense.

Q: Where do I start if I have no lawyer? A: Go to the PNP-ACG or NBI-CCD with your evidence. You may also visit the City Prosecutor’s Office in your place of residence to file a Complaint-Affidavit.

15) Quick contacts & preparation list

Who to contact

PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG) – investigation, preservation letters.
NBI Cybercrime Division – investigation, forensics.
City/Provincial Prosecutor – filing criminal complaints.
Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) – if you qualify for legal aid.
National Privacy Commission (NPC) – for Data Privacy complaints.
DSWD/PCW – for SSA/VAWC support services.

Bring

Government ID, address proof (for venue), USB with originals, printed Annexes (with URLs, timestamps), and a draft Complaint-Affidavit.

Bottom line

Cyber harassment and defamation on social media are actionable in the Philippines.
Cyberlibel is the usual vehicle for online defamation, with heavier penalties than traditional libel.
Strong cases win on evidence: capture it properly, preserve it early, and authenticate it well.
Use the right venue, file within prescription, and combine criminal, civil, and protective remedies to stop the harm and obtain redress.

If you’d like, I can turn this into a printable checklist pack (with a Complaint-Affidavit template and an evidence log you can fill in).