1) The scenario and why demand letters matter

A common sequence in online defamation disputes goes like this:

A person posts (or shares) a statement online that another person claims is defamatory.
The offended party (or counsel) sends a demand letter—typically asking for takedown, apology/retraction, and sometimes payment of damages.
The recipient ignores the letter (or refuses to comply).
The offended party files a cyber libel complaint.

In Philippine law, the demand letter is usually not a legal prerequisite to filing a cyber libel case. Ignoring it does not automatically prove cyber libel. But it can become important evidence of good faith or bad faith, can affect damages, and can influence how the prosecutor and court view malice and the parties’ credibility.

2) What “cyber libel” is, legally

A) The core statutes

Cyber libel is essentially libel under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), committed through a computer system or similar means under Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012).

Libel (RPC): Defamation by writing, printing, radio, “or similar means,” which includes imputations that tend to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt.
Cyber libel (RA 10175): Libel “committed through a computer system,” generally punished one degree higher than ordinary libel.

B) Cyber libel vs. “online criticism”

Not every harsh post is cyber libel. The law focuses on defamatory imputation presented as fact (or capable of being understood as fact), published to others, identifying the target, and accompanied by malice (often presumed, with important exceptions).

3) Elements the complainant must establish

In practice, a cyber libel complaint turns on the traditional elements of libel, adapted to the online setting:

Defamatory imputation There must be an imputation of a discreditable act, condition, status, or circumstance that tends to dishonor or discredit a person.
Publication The imputation must be communicated to at least one third person. Online posting (public or in a group/page) generally meets this. A purely private one-to-one message may fail “publication,” depending on facts.
Identifiability of the offended party The target must be identifiable—by name, photo, handle, position, or circumstances enabling readers to recognize who is being referred to.
Malice Malice is often presumed in defamatory imputations, but that presumption can be defeated in cases of privileged communication and fair comment, where the burden shifts to show actual malice (bad faith).

Cyber element: The act must be committed through a computer system (social media, blogs, websites, certain group chats, etc.).

4) Demand letters: what they are and what they are not

A) What a demand letter usually contains

A typical cyber libel demand letter may include:

identification of the allegedly defamatory post (screenshots/links, date/time),
demand to take down content,
demand for apology/retraction,
warning of intended filing (prosecutor/NBI/PNP-ACG),
demand for payment (sometimes framed as settlement of civil damages).

B) What the law does not require

No legal requirement that the offended party send a demand letter before filing.
No automatic liability simply because the letter was ignored.

C) Why ignoring a demand letter can still hurt

Ignoring can be framed as:

continued publication (if the post remains up and accessible),
refusal to mitigate harm,
evidence of bad faith (especially if the letter points out falsity and requests verification/correction).

That said, silence can also be explained (e.g., avoiding self-incrimination, waiting for counsel, not admitting anything). The impact depends on the totality of evidence.

5) “Publication” online: posts, shares, comments, group chats, and republication

A) Original posting

Uploading a defamatory post to a public page, profile, story, blog, or forum is typically “publication.”

B) Sharing/retweeting/reposting

Reposting or sharing can create liability when it republishes the defamatory imputation, especially if accompanied by:

endorsement,
additional defamatory commentary,
captions that adopt the accusation.

C) Comments

A defamatory comment can be a separate publication.

D) “Likes” and reactions

A mere reaction is generally argued as not a republication by itself (because it does not necessarily communicate the defamatory statement anew as the reactor’s own), but context can matter. The more the act looks like reposting or adopting the defamatory content, the higher the risk.

E) Group chats and private groups

Even in a “closed” group, publication can exist if the statement is communicated to others beyond the speaker and the target. Claims often depend on:

membership size,
accessibility,
whether the message was forwarded outside the group,
whether the target was identifiable.

F) Single publication vs. continuing harm

Online content can stay accessible for a long time. In disputes, parties often argue whether:

the offense happens once at initial upload, or
continuing accessibility and later shares amount to new publications.

Courts typically treat reposts/shares as new publications; whether mere continued availability counts as a new offense is more contentious and fact-driven.

6) Malice, privileged communications, and “public interest” speech

A) Presumed malice (general rule)

In ordinary defamatory imputations, malice is commonly presumed.

B) Privileged communications (important exceptions)

There are communications that receive stronger protection:

Absolute privilege (rare but powerful) Examples typically include statements made in legislative/judicial proceedings and certain official acts—these are generally immune from libel liability when within the scope of the proceeding.
Qualified privilege This covers communications made in the performance of a legal, moral, or social duty; and fair comment on matters of public interest. In these, the complainant generally must show actual malice—that the speaker knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard, or was motivated by ill will rather than legitimate purpose.

C) Opinion vs. assertion of fact

A key defense theme is whether the statement is:

a verifiable factual claim (“X stole money”), or
opinion/commentary (“I think the service is awful”), rhetorical hyperbole, satire, or criticism.

Pure opinion is safer, but labeling something “opinion” does not shield a post that effectively asserts false facts.

D) Truth as a defense

Truth is not a universal “get-out-of-jail” card in Philippine libel doctrine. Traditionally, truth is most protective when paired with:

good motives, and
justifiable ends especially where the matter involves public interest. The burden is on the defense to establish the requirements, and the analysis is fact-specific.

7) Who may be charged

A) Primary actors

the original author/poster,
the person who republishes (shares/reposts) in a manner treated as publication.

B) Platforms and service providers

As a rule, neutral intermediaries are not automatically treated as publishers in the same way as the original poster, absent participation, control, or other legally significant involvement. In practice, complainants often focus on identifiable individuals rather than platforms.

C) Employers, page admins, moderators

Liability depends on actual participation: authorship, adoption, direction, or meaningful control over publication. Mere job relationship or administrative status is not always enough; proof matters.

8) From ignored demand letter to a cyber libel complaint: how filing usually works

A) Evidence gathering (often begins before filing)

Complainants usually secure:

screenshots (including URL, timestamp indicators if available),
device capture and preservation,
affidavits of witnesses who saw the post,
context: prior disputes, messages, demand letter and proof of receipt,
identification evidence tying the account to the respondent.

Because posts can be deleted, complainants may also pursue preservation steps through lawful processes.

B) Where complaints are brought

A cyber libel complaint is typically filed through:

the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor for preliminary investigation, and/or
investigative support from NBI or PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG) (common in cyber cases).

C) Preliminary investigation (the “probable cause” stage)

The prosecutor evaluates whether there is probable cause to charge:

Complainant files a complaint-affidavit with attachments.
Respondent is required to submit a counter-affidavit and evidence.
Clarificatory hearings may occur, but many cases are resolved on affidavits and documents.
If probable cause is found, an Information is filed in court; if not, the case is dismissed (subject to possible appeal to the DOJ).

D) Trial stage (beyond reasonable doubt)

If it proceeds to court:

the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and
defenses (privilege, lack of publication, lack of identifiability, absence of malice, truth with required conditions, good faith) become central.

9) Venue and jurisdiction: where the case can be filed

Cyber libel venue can be strategic and contested. Two overlapping ideas matter:

Traditional libel venue rules (RPC framework) historically focus on where the defamatory material was printed/first published and/or where the offended party resides (with special rules for public officers).
Cybercrime jurisdiction concepts consider where any element of the offense occurred or where relevant computer systems/data are involved.

Because online publication is accessible broadly, venue disputes arise frequently, and improper venue can be raised as a ground to challenge proceedings. In practice, complainants often file where they reside or where the posting is alleged to have been made, but the defensibility of venue depends on detailed facts.

Cybercrime cases are commonly raffled to designated cybercrime courts.

10) Prescription (time limits): a recurring battleground

Prescription issues in cyber libel have been heavily litigated in practice. Ordinary libel is traditionally treated as having a shorter prescriptive period, while cyber libel arguments sometimes invoke longer periods based on its classification and penalty structure.

Because outcomes can vary depending on:

the theory applied (whether treated like ordinary libel vs. special-law computation),
how “publication date” is determined (original post vs. repost),
and the procedural timeline (complaint filing vs. information filing),

prescription is often a major early defense issue.

11) Penalties and civil exposure

A) Criminal penalties

Cyber libel is typically punished one degree higher than ordinary libel. In real-world terms, that often means:

potential imprisonment (non-capital), and/or
fines (depending on the court’s discretion and applicable rules).

Bail is generally available, but procedural burdens (warrants, court appearances) can be significant.

B) Civil damages (often attached to the criminal case)

Civil liability is commonly pursued alongside the criminal case unless reserved separately. Claims can include:

actual damages (provable loss),
moral damages (emotional harm, reputational injury),
exemplary damages (when bad faith/oppression is shown),
attorney’s fees (in proper cases).

Role of the ignored demand letter: complainants frequently argue that refusal to retract/apologize aggravated harm and supports higher damages; respondents argue that the demand letter is self-serving or that silence is not malice.

12) Retraction, apology, and settlement: what they do (and don’t) do

A retraction/apology is not an automatic legal shield, and it does not erase criminal liability by itself.
It can be relevant to good faith, mitigation of damages, and settlement dynamics.
An affidavit of desistance by the complainant does not automatically dismiss the case; prosecutors/courts may still proceed if they find sufficient evidence and public interest, though in practice desistance often weakens the case.

13) Digital evidence: common weak points (and how they are attacked)

Cyber libel cases are often won or lost on evidence quality:

A) Authentication problems

Screenshots can be attacked as:

fabricated,
incomplete,
missing URL/context,
lacking proof of account ownership,
lacking proof of date/time.

B) Account attribution

Showing that “this account belongs to the respondent” can require:

admissions,
consistent identifiers across posts,
witness testimony,
device/account recovery links,
lawful requests for data (subject to privacy and platform constraints).

C) Chain of custody and legality of collection

Illegally obtained evidence may be challenged. Courts scrutinize:

how evidence was collected,
whether warrants/orders were required for certain data,
whether privacy protections were violated.

The Rules on Electronic Evidence and cybercrime warrant procedures shape how digital proof is presented and contested.

14) Typical defense themes after a demand letter was ignored

Ignoring a demand letter does not decide the case; defenses often focus on fundamentals:

No defamatory imputation (statement is not defamatory in context)
No publication (private communication; no third party)
No identifiability (target not reasonably identifiable)
Privileged communication / fair comment (public interest; qualified privilege)
Lack of malice / good faith (due diligence, reliance on credible sources, honest mistake)
Truth with required conditions (where applicable)
Opinion/hyperbole (not a factual assertion)
Venue/prescription defects (threshold legal defenses)
Misidentification / account not controlled by respondent (attribution defense)

15) Practical legal takeaway of the “ignored demand letter” detail

In Philippine cyber libel disputes, the ignored demand letter is usually best understood as:

Not a legal prerequisite, and not proof by itself; but
a fact used to argue notice, refusal to mitigate, state of mind, and damages; and
a stepping stone to formal action when the offended party decides to pursue criminal and civil remedies.

The outcome ultimately depends on whether the prosecution can prove the elements of cyber libel and overcome defenses—especially privilege, public-interest commentary protections, and evidentiary weaknesses common in online cases.