Snapshot. Offensive Facebook posts can give rise to criminal cyber libel, traditional libel, and/or civil damages. Under the Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175), libel as defined in the Revised Penal Code (RPC)—when committed through a computer system (e.g., Facebook posts, comments, captions, public stories, page updates, group posts, and sometimes “shares”)—is punishable at a penalty one degree higher than offline libel. Success or defense typically turns on four pillars: (1) what was said (defamatory imputation), (2) who was targeted (identifiability), (3) whether it was published to a third person (FB visibility), and (4) fault (malice, intent, or defenses such as truth with good motives, fair comment, and privileges). Time limits and proof of publication/identity are frequently decisive.

1) Legal bases and key concepts

Libel (RPC Arts. 353–355, 361–362). Libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice, defect (real or imaginary), or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to dishonor, discredit, or contempt a person. Written/printed (or “similar means”) defamation is libel; spoken is slander.
Cyber libel (RA 10175, sec. 4(c)(4) in relation to sec. 6). When libel is committed through a computer system or any other similar means, the offense is cyber libel. Penalties are one degree higher than those for Article 355.
Elements (applied to Facebook):
1. Defamatory imputation—content tends to dishonor/discredit;
2. Identifiability—the victim is named or reasonably ascertainable by context (tags, photos, details);
3. Publication—shown to at least one third person (public post, friends-only visible to others, group posts, tagged posts, or PMs to multiple recipients);
4. Malice—presumed in defamatory statements, but may be rebutted or negated by privilege or by showing good motives/justifiable ends. Public figures/officers generally need to show actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth) for privileged fair comment.

2) Scope on Facebook (what counts as “publication”)

Public posts/pages/groups: Clear publication.
Friends-only posts: Publication if any friend sees it.
Closed/secret groups or Messenger group chats: Publication exists if at least one person other than the subject can view the content.
Direct 1:1 message to the subject only: No publication → no libel (but other laws may apply, e.g., VAWC, Safe Spaces Act, Data Privacy).
Comments, captions, and memes: Treated as text with images; memes that imply facts can be defamatory.
“Sharing”/“reposting”: Can be republication if it communicates the defamatory content anew; liability depends on knowledge, intent, and added commentary.
“Likes/Reactions”: Generally not publication by themselves; context can still matter if accompanied by defamatory commentary or coordinated conduct.

3) Penalties and exposure

Traditional libel (Art. 355): prisión correccional (min–med) and/or fine.
Cyber libel (RA 10175 sec. 6): One degree higher—commonly prisión correccional (max) to prisión mayor (min) and/or fine—thus exposure can reach up to eight (8) years imprisonment, subject to judicial discretion and mitigating/aggravating circumstances.
Civil liability: Independent claim for moral, exemplary, and actual damages, plus attorney’s fees. Criminal filing usually impliedly includes civil liability unless waived or separately filed.

4) Defenses and privileged communications

Truth + good motives/justifiable ends (Art. 361). Truth alone is not always enough; the law also asks if disclosure served good motives or justifiable ends (e.g., reporting a matter of legitimate public concern).
Qualified privilege:
- Fair comment on public officers and public figures regarding official acts or matters of public interest—protected opinion (not false statements of fact) made without actual malice.
- Communications in the performance of a legal/moral duty or in the protection of a legitimate interest (e.g., bona fide reports to authorities).
Absolute privilege: Very limited (e.g., statements in legislative/judicial proceedings by participants under proper scope).
Honest opinion vs. factual assertion: Opinion based on disclosed true facts is safer; false statements “dressed” as opinion can still be libelous.
Consent/retaliatory publication: The offended party’s consent to publication defeats libel; “retaliation” is not a defense.

5) Public officers, public figures, and “actual malice”

Public officers/figures (politicians, celebrities, influencers) have reduced protection for statements on public acts/concerns. To recover, they typically must prove actual malice.
Actual malice = knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard (e.g., ignoring obvious red flags, refusing to verify easily verifiable facts).
Due diligence (checking sources, using neutral language, giving chance to comment) helps negate malice.

6) Time limits (prescription) and the “single publication” idea

Criminal libel: One (1) year from publication (or from discovery when not readily accessible); prosecutors are strict—file early.
Cyber libel: The same one-year period is generally applied, counting from first online publication (republication can restart the clock if the post is materially modified or re-posted in a way that reissues the defamation).
Civil action: Longer prescriptive periods may apply (e.g., 4 years for quasi-delict; written contract claims differ). Don’t rely on civil periods to save a late criminal filing.

7) Venue and jurisdiction

Criminal venue: Where any element occurred, typically:
- where the offended party resided at the time of publication, or
- where the post was first published/accessed in the Philippines.
Cybercrime procedure: Cases often pass through NBI–ACG or PNP–ACG for technical assistance, then to the City/Provincial Prosecutor, and, upon finding of probable cause, to the Regional Trial Court (Special Cybercrime Court).

8) Evidence: building (or breaking) a cyber libel case

For complainants (to prove):

Identity of the poster: real-name accounts, page admin linkage, device/email/phone, admissions in chat, or forensic ties.
Publication: screenshots (full-page with URL, date/time, visibility settings), archive/HTML captures, and witnesses who viewed the post.
Defamatory content: keep the exact words/images, including comments and edits; capture context (thread, caption, hashtags).
Damages: proof of injury (business loss, medical/psychological reports, reputational harm).
Chain of custody for electronic evidence: hashing of exported files, certification under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, affidavits of the person who captured the screenshots.

For respondents (to defend):

Context and truth: documents, recordings, messages, public records.
Privilege: report to authorities, fair comment, opinion based on disclosed facts.
Lack of identifiability/publication: the post does not point to the complainant, or was visible only to the complainant.
Absence of malice: efforts to verify; prompt retraction/apology (mitigates but is not an absolute defense).
Manipulation: challenge authenticity (metadata mismatches, edited screenshots).

9) Takedowns, preservation, and intermediary issues

Preserve first. Before asking removal, capture evidence (screens, source HTML, URLs, witnesses).
Request takedown from the user/page or via platform reporting tools (defamation/harassment).
Government “takedowns.” Blocking or seizure typically requires court warrants; administrative takedown powers are limited.
Subpoenas to platforms. Identifying admins/IP logs generally requires law enforcement requests and, for foreign providers, MLAT or platform compliance channels—expect lead time.

10) Intersections with other laws

Safe Spaces Act (RA 11313): Gender-based online sexual harassment (GBOH): catcalling online, sexualized insults, non-consensual sexual content—separate offenses and penalties.
Anti-VAWC (RA 9262): Online psychological violence by spouses/intimate partners—criminal, with protection orders.
Data Privacy Act (RA 10173): Unlawful processing/disclosure of personal data; “doxxing” can implicate DPA violations.
Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism (RA 9995): Posting intimate images without consent—distinct crime with strong penalties.
Child protection laws: Extremely strict if the content involves minors (e.g., child abuse, anti-child porn statutes).

11) Step-by-step playbooks

A) For victims (complainants)

Freeze the proof: Full-page screenshots with URL/time, export thread (PDF/HTML), copy links, and gather witnesses.
Medical/HR/business records: Document concrete harm (panic attacks, lost contracts, disciplinary impact).
Send a demand (optional but helpful): Retract, delete, and apologize; preserve the right to sue.
File a criminal complaint (cyber libel) with NBI-ACG/PNP-ACG or directly with the Prosecutor—attach evidence with electronic evidence certifications.
Consider civil action for damages; apply for provisional remedies (e.g., attachment) if there is risk of asset dissipation.
Safety measures: If harassment persists, explore protection orders (VAWC/GBOH) and platform blocks.

B) For accused posters (respondents)

Do not delete (spoliation risks). Take your own forensic captures and consult counsel.
Evaluate defenses: truth, privilege, opinion, lack of identifiability/publication, lack of malice.
Calibrated response: Clarify, retract, or apologize if warranted (mitigates damages, may aid settlement/probation).
Prepare counter-evidence and affidavits; avoid further defamatory posts.
Explore settlement/mediation without admitting criminal liability if strategic.

12) Practical drafting tools

A) Demand to Retract/Take Down (short form)

[Date]

[Name/FB Page]
[Link(s) to Post(s)]

Subject: DEMAND TO DELETE AND RETRACT DEFAMATORY FACEBOOK POST(S)

Your Facebook post(s) dated [date] at [URL] contain false and defamatory statements imputing [specific imputation].
These have been seen by third parties and are causing reputational and pecuniary harm.

Demand is made that within 48 hours you:
1) Delete the post(s) and related comments/shares within your control;
2) Publish a retraction/apology with equal visibility; and
3) Cease and desist from further defamatory statements.

Absent compliance, we will file criminal charges for **cyber libel** and pursue civil damages, without further notice.

Very truly yours,
[Complainant/Counsel]

B) Affidavit-Complaint (outline for cyber libel)

1) I am [Name], of legal age, residing at [address]. The respondent is [Name/FB URL], admin of [Page/Group].
2) On [date/time], respondent published on Facebook at [URL] the statements quoted in Annex “A”, imputing [defamation].
3) The post was publicly viewable/visible to [friends/group], satisfying publication. Annex “B” (screenshots with URL/time); Annex “C” (witness affidavits).
4) The statements are false; Annex “D–F” (documents proving falsity). Respondent acted with malice, as shown by [ignored corrections, knew facts, motive].
5) I suffered harm: [injury], Annex “G–I” (proof of damages).
PRAYER: File Information for **cyber libel** and award civil damages.

13) Compliance tips for content creators and page admins

Label opinions as opinions, and disclose your factual basis with links/documents.
Verify facts, especially accusations of crime, fraud, or serious misconduct.
Avoid doxxing and gratuitous insults about private individuals.
Redact minors’ identities and sensitive personal data.
Moderate comments; defamatory user comments can compound exposure if you solicit or endorse them.

14) Frequent pitfalls

Missing the one-year deadline to file criminally.
Weak identifiability (no one could tell who the post referred to).
Unreliable screenshots (no URL/time, cropped, or edited).
Overreliance on “truth” without showing good motives/justifiable ends.
Mistaking opinion for a shield when it states or implies false facts.

15) Key takeaways

A Facebook post that defames, identifies, and is seen by others can be cyber libel with stiffer penalties than offline libel.
Truth helps only when paired with good motives/justifiable ends; fair comment protects opinion on matters of public concern when made without actual malice.
Act fast: preserve evidence and mind the one-year criminal prescriptive period.
Choose the right remedy mix (criminal, civil, protective statutes) and build the electronic evidence properly.

If you share the post links, dates, audience setting, and what’s false or harmful, I can map your best course (criminal vs. civil or both), craft a demand or defense, and list the exact exhibits you’ll need.