1) What the problem covers (and what Philippine law actually punishes)

“Cyberbullying” and “online harassment” are everyday terms that describe a wide range of behaviors—from ridicule and pile-ons to threats, impersonation, doxxing, and non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Philippine law does not use “cyberbullying” as one single crime for all settings. Instead, it addresses online abuse through a patchwork of criminal offenses, special laws, administrative rules (especially in schools and workplaces), and civil remedies.

A practical way to understand the landscape is to classify online abuse into categories, then match each to the appropriate law and forum:

Defamation and reputational attacks (false accusations, smear posts, humiliating captions, defamatory videos)
Threats, coercion, stalking-like conduct (death threats, “I’ll ruin you,” intimidation, repeated unwanted contact)
Sex-based / gender-based abuse (unwanted sexual remarks, sexualized insults, “send nudes,” rape threats, “revenge porn,” deepfake sexual content)
Privacy violations and doxxing (posting home address, phone numbers, IDs, workplace details, family info; unauthorized disclosure)
Impersonation and identity abuse (fake accounts, pretending to be the victim, scams using someone’s name/photo)
Child-focused abuse (targeting minors; sexual exploitation; grooming; sharing sexual content involving children)
Unauthorized access / hacking and account takeovers
School-based bullying (including online behavior connected to a school context)

A key legal concept in the Philippines is that when an act is a crime under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) or another special law, and it is committed “by, through, and with the use of information and communications technology,” it may be prosecuted under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175) and, in many cases, penalized more severely.

2) Core statutes and how they fit together

A. Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175)

RA 10175 matters in two big ways:

It creates specific cybercrime offenses, including:

Cyber libel (libel committed through a computer system)
Identity theft (and related computer-related fraud)
Illegal access, data interference, system interference, misuse of devices, cybersquatting, and other computer-related offenses

It “pulls in” crimes already punishable elsewhere (RPC or special laws) when committed using ICT, often with a higher penalty (the statute’s enhancement rule is commonly described as “one degree higher,” subject to how the specific offense and jurisprudence apply).

Common RA 10175 angles in harassment cases

Cyber libel for defamatory posts
Identity theft / impersonation for fake profiles or pretending to be the victim
Computer-related fraud when harassment overlaps with scams
Illegal access when harassment begins with hacking or account takeover

Important practical note: RA 10175 also has procedures about data preservation, disclosure, and collection; in practice these are closely tied to court processes and warrants (see the evidence section).

B. Revised Penal Code (RPC): traditional crimes that often apply online

Many “online harassment” incidents are prosecuted using classic RPC offenses, sometimes enhanced or treated as cybercrime when ICT is used.

Common examples:

Grave threats / light threats (threats of a wrong amounting to a crime; threats to harm; intimidation)
Grave coercion / light coercion (including unjust vexation) (forcing someone to do something against their will; persistent annoyance/harassment that is clearly wrongful)
Slander by deed (humiliating acts; conduct that dishonors)
Intriguing against honor (spreading rumors to damage reputation)
Acts of lasciviousness (depending on conduct)
Alarm and scandal (rarely used; depends on facts)

Online behavior can satisfy these elements even if there is no physical contact, because the focus is on the act, intent, and harm, not the medium.

C. Anti-Bullying Act of 2013 (RA 10627): the “cyberbullying” law for schools

RA 10627 is the most direct place where “cyberbullying” appears as a concept.

It requires elementary and secondary schools (public and private) to adopt anti-bullying policies and handle complaints.
It covers bullying that happens in school, on school property, in school activities, and often includes acts that affect a student’s participation in school—even if the conduct is online.

Key limitation: RA 10627 is primarily administrative/disciplinary within schools. It does not replace criminal law. A serious online incident may involve:

School discipline under RA 10627, plus
Criminal complaints under the RPC / RA 10175, and/or
Civil remedies (damages, injunctions), depending on facts

D. Safe Spaces Act (RA 11313): gender-based online sexual harassment

RA 11313 is a central law for modern online abuse when it is sexual or gender-based.

It addresses gender-based online sexual harassment, which can include (depending on the facts and statutory definitions):

Unwanted sexual remarks and sexualized insults online
Sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic harassment tied to sex/gender/sexuality
Sexual threats, sexual coercion, and humiliation
Non-consensual sharing of sexual content (often overlaps with RA 9995)
Harassment campaigns with sexual content or gender-based targeting

RA 11313 can apply in:

Public spaces
Workplaces
Schools
Online environments

This law is especially relevant where harassment is framed as “jokes” but is sexualized, persistent, targeted, or intimidating.

E. Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act (RA 9995): non-consensual intimate images

RA 9995 directly targets:

Recording or capturing images/videos of sexual acts or intimate parts without consent
Copying, reproducing, selling, distributing, publishing, or broadcasting such content without consent
Sharing “revenge porn,” leaked private videos, voyeuristic recordings

This is often one of the strongest criminal anchors when harassment includes intimate images, even if the relationship was consensual—because distribution without consent is the core wrong.

F. Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (RA 9262): psychological violence and protection orders

RA 9262 can apply when:

The victim is a woman and the perpetrator is a current or former husband, boyfriend, partner, or someone with whom she has a dating/sexual relationship, or the father of her child.
The conduct amounts to psychological violence, including harassment, intimidation, stalking-like behaviors, public humiliation, and other acts causing mental or emotional suffering.

A major feature of RA 9262 is access to protection orders (including urgent orders issued at the barangay/court level depending on circumstances). For online harassment in an intimate-partner context, RA 9262 is often a key tool because it can produce fast protective relief, not just punishment after trial.

G. Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173): doxxing, unauthorized disclosure, misuse of personal data

When harassment includes:

Posting personal data (address, phone, workplace, IDs, school records, medical info)
Publishing someone’s private information without a lawful basis
Using stolen personal data to harass or incite attacks

RA 10173 may apply, and the National Privacy Commission (NPC) can be a complaint forum for certain data privacy violations. Data privacy complaints can sometimes produce corrective orders and accountability even when criminal prosecution is slow.

H. Child protection laws: when the victim (or content) involves minors

If a minor is involved, the legal posture changes significantly.

Key laws include:

Anti-Child Pornography Act (RA 9775) and related amendments/updates
Anti-OSAEC and Anti-CSAM Act (RA 11930) for online sexual abuse/exploitation of children and child sexual abuse materials
Anti-Trafficking in Persons law framework (when exploitation is involved)

If the harassment includes sexual content involving a child, threats to circulate such content, grooming, or coercion, it can trigger serious felony-level exposure.

I. Anti-Sexual Harassment Act (RA 7877) and workplace/school rules

RA 7877 traditionally covers sexual harassment where there is:

Authority, influence, or moral ascendancy (e.g., boss-employee, teacher-student)

It can overlap with RA 11313, which broadened protections, especially in modern settings.

3) Matching behavior to legal options (Philippine-context issue spotting)

1) “They posted lies about me / accused me of cheating / called me a thief”

Possible legal anchors:

Libel / cyber libel (if defamatory imputation is published and identifiable to a person)
Slander by deed / intriguing against honor (depending on the form)
Civil damages (Civil Code: abuse of rights, moral damages; privacy protections)

Key questions:

Is the post an assertion of fact or an opinion?
Can the victim be identified (name, photo, context)?
Was it published to third persons (public post or group chat with others)?
Was there malice (often presumed in defamatory imputations unless privileged)?

2) “They keep messaging me insults daily / making fake accounts / dogpiling me”

Possible legal anchors:

Unjust vexation / coercion-type offenses (fact-sensitive)
Safe Spaces Act if gender-based/sexual
Identity theft if impersonation is used
Civil remedies (injunction/damages), especially when persistent

Key questions:

Is there a pattern of repeated unwanted conduct?
Are there threats, coercion, or intimidation?
Are there sexual/gender-based elements?

3) “They threatened to hurt/kill me or my family”

Possible legal anchors:

Grave threats / other threats
Potential cybercrime enhancement when ICT is used
If immediate danger: law enforcement response and safety planning matter as much as prosecution

Key questions:

Specificity and credibility of the threat
Identifiable perpetrator and means
History of violence, stalking, capability

4) “They leaked my private photos/videos”

Possible legal anchors:

RA 9995 (non-consensual sharing/recording of intimate images)
RA 11313 (gender-based online sexual harassment)
RA 10175 (if other cybercrime elements exist; plus evidence preservation tools)
Civil damages and takedown efforts

Key questions:

Consent to recording vs consent to sharing (not the same)
Proof of distribution, identity of uploader, circulation channels

5) “They posted my address/number/IDs and told people to attack me” (doxxing)

Possible legal anchors:

Data Privacy Act (unauthorized disclosure/misuse of personal data)
Threats/coercion depending on accompanying language
Civil Code privacy and damages
Writ of habeas data in appropriate cases (to control/rectify personal data being processed or disclosed)

Key questions:

What personal data was disclosed and by whom?
Was it obtained unlawfully (breach/hacking) or from a private setting?
Was there incitement or instruction to harass?

6) “They hacked my account and posted as me”

Possible legal anchors:

Illegal access (RA 10175)
Identity theft
Possibly falsification/fraud depending on use

Key questions:

Evidence of takeover (login alerts, password change emails, device logs)
Proof linking activity to suspect (hard without law enforcement data requests)

4) Evidence: what wins or loses cases in the Philippines

Online harassment cases fail most often not because the harm is unclear, but because evidence is incomplete, poorly preserved, or difficult to authenticate. Philippine courts apply the Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC) alongside standard evidentiary rules, and prosecutors commonly require clear authentication before filing.

A. The goal: preserve content + context + attribution

A strong evidence package usually captures:

Content: the words/images/videos posted or sent
Context: where it appeared (platform, account, group/page), relationship of parties, prior incidents, timeline
Attribution: linking the content to the suspect (account identity, admissions, corroboration, metadata, and—when needed—law enforcement records)

B. Minimum evidence checklist (do this early)

For posts, comments, stories, DMs, texts, emails:

Screenshots AND screen recordings showing:
- The full post/message
- The account name/handle
- Date/time indicators (as shown by the platform)
- The URL (for web) or message permalink, when available
- The surrounding context (thread, comments, group name)
Original links (copy/paste URLs into a document)
Platform exports:
- Many platforms allow downloading account data or chat history; exported logs help show completeness and timestamps.
Device preservation:
- Keep the phone/computer used to view or receive the harassment.
- Avoid deleting messages or “cleaning” the thread.
Witness corroboration:
- Affidavits of people who saw the post or are members of the group chat.
Admissions:
- Any message where the perpetrator admits authorship (“Oo ako ‘yan,” “ginawa ko talaga,” etc.)

C. Authentication: what prosecutors and courts look for

Electronic evidence generally must be shown to be:

What it purports to be (authentic)
Unaltered in relevant parts (integrity)
Properly sourced (who captured it, when, how)

Common ways to authenticate:

Testimony/affidavit of the person who captured the screenshot explaining how it was accessed and captured
Corroboration by another witness who saw the same content
Metadata or platform records (harder to get without legal process)
Forensic extraction reports (when serious or disputed)

A notarized affidavit attaching printouts can help show formality, but notarization alone does not magically prove authenticity if the other side disputes it. The more the case is contested, the more important integrity measures become.

D. Integrity and chain-of-custody practices (practical, court-friendly)

Capture content as soon as possible (before deletion)
Use screen recording to show navigation from profile → post → comments
Include device date/time visible when feasible
Save originals in a folder; avoid editing/cropping except to redact irrelevant sensitive data (keep unredacted originals separately)
If videos are involved, keep the original file, not only a re-uploaded copy
Document a short evidence log: who captured, when, device used, file names

E. Getting data from platforms: why law enforcement involvement matters

To identify anonymous users or prove attribution beyond doubt, cases often require:

IP logs
Subscriber information
Account registration data
Login/access records

These usually require legal process and are typically handled through PNP/NBI + prosecutor/court procedures, not private requests.

F. Evidence pitfalls unique to the Philippines

Recording private calls without consent can raise issues under the Anti-Wiretapping Act (RA 4200). Even if morally understandable, secret recordings can create legal complications.
Self-help retaliation (doxxing the harasser, threatening back) can expose the victim to countercharges.
Deleted/ephemeral content (stories, disappearing messages) requires faster capture and better documentation.

G. Cybercrime warrants (procedural backbone)

Investigators may use specialized court processes under the Rule on Cybercrime Warrants (A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC) for:

Preserving computer data
Disclosing subscriber/account data
Searching and seizing devices and computer data
Examining seized data
Intercepting certain data under strict conditions

For victims, the practical takeaway is: the stronger the initial evidence and identification leads, the easier it is for investigators to justify court-authorized data requests.

5) Where and how to file complaints (Philippine pathways)

A. Decide your forum(s): criminal, administrative, civil—often more than one

Online harassment cases can move on parallel tracks:

Criminal complaint (to prosecute and penalize)
Administrative complaint (school/workplace discipline; Safe Spaces Act mechanisms)
Civil action (damages; injunction-type relief; privacy actions; writs)
Regulatory complaint (data privacy matters before the NPC)

The best choice depends on:

The relationship of parties (classmates, coworkers, ex-partners)
The nature of abuse (defamation vs threats vs sexual content)
The need for speed and protection (protection orders vs slow criminal timelines)
Evidence strength and identifiability of the offender

B. Immediate response when safety is at risk

If there are credible threats of violence or stalking-like escalation:

Prioritize physical safety, documentation, and rapid law enforcement engagement.
Preserve evidence first; do not negotiate alone if threats are serious.

C. Criminal complaints: step-by-step (typical Philippine process)

Step 1: Evidence preservation + incident narrative

Prepare a clean timeline:

Who did what, when, where (platform), how often
Attach screenshots/links as annexes

Step 2: Report to cybercrime-capable law enforcement (often the most efficient first stop)

Common entry points:

PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group / local cybercrime desks
NBI Cybercrime Division They can help with:
Initial evaluation (what offense fits)
Forensic handling guidance
Coordinating preservation and legal process requests where appropriate

Step 3: Complaint-affidavit + annexes

A prosecutor typically needs:

Complaint-affidavit of the complainant
Sworn statements of witnesses (if any)
Annexes: screenshots, URLs, recordings, printouts, device logs, demand letters (if any), medical/psychological documents (if harm is relevant), school/workplace records (if applicable)

Step 4: Filing with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor (preliminary investigation)

Most cyber-related cases proceed through preliminary investigation:

Respondent is required to submit a counter-affidavit
Parties may submit replies/rejoinders
Prosecutor issues a resolution: dismiss or file in court

Step 5: Court filing and trial (if probable cause is found)

If filed, the case goes to a designated court (often a cybercrime-designated RTC branch depending on locality and offense). Electronic evidence will need proper presentation and authentication.

D. Administrative complaints and protective mechanisms

1) School setting (RA 10627 and school child protection frameworks)

When parties are students (or the incident affects a student’s school participation):

File within the school using its anti-bullying procedures
Ask for interim protective measures (separation, no-contact orders within school rules, monitoring, counseling referrals)
Keep records: incident reports, notices, findings, sanctions

School action can be faster than criminal action, but it does not replace criminal remedies for severe conduct.

2) Workplace setting (RA 11313 and workplace policies)

For workplace-related online harassment:

Report to HR or the employer’s committee/mechanism under Safe Spaces Act compliance
Preserve evidence and request protective workplace measures (no-contact directives, schedule changes, investigation)

3) RA 9262 protection orders (when applicable)

In intimate-partner contexts involving a woman victim:

Protection orders can impose no-contact, distance restrictions, and other protective terms.
This track focuses on prevention and safety, not just punishment after trial.

E. Data privacy complaints (NPC track)

For doxxing and personal data misuse, a complaint may be filed with the National Privacy Commission where the facts fit the Data Privacy Act. This path is most useful when:

Personal data is clearly disclosed/processed without lawful basis
There is a definable “personal information controller/processor” (including certain entities), or a clear accountable individual act
Practical relief sought includes takedown/correction/cessation orders and accountability measures

F. Katarungang Pambarangay (barangay conciliation): when it matters, when it doesn’t

Some disputes require barangay conciliation before going to court, but many cybercrime-related offenses and cases with higher penalties or specific statutory procedures may not be subject to barangay mediation requirements. Practical handling varies by offense and locality; filing directly with the prosecutor or appropriate agency is common for serious online harassment, threats, sexual offenses, and cybercrime matters.

6) Drafting a complaint-affidavit that prosecutors actually act on

A strong complaint-affidavit is usually:

Chronological
Specific
Evidence-anchored (each allegation points to annexes)

Suggested structure

Parties and relationship

Full names, addresses (if known), relationship (classmate, ex, coworker)

Platform and identifiers

Account names/handles, group names, URLs, phone numbers used

Incident narrative (timeline)

Date/time of each major incident
Quote or describe the exact statements/images
Explain why it is defamatory/threatening/coercive/sexual harassment/etc.

Harm and impact

Fear, distress, reputational harm, work/school impact
Any counseling/medical consults (if applicable)

Attribution facts

Why the account is believed to be the respondent (admissions, known account, consistent identifiers, mutual contacts, prior use)

Prior steps

Platform reports, school/workplace reports, warnings sent, police blotter references

Relief requested

Investigation, prosecution, protective measures (when appropriate)

Annex list

Annex “A” screenshots, Annex “B” URLs, etc.

7) Common defenses and counter-moves (and how they affect strategy)

A. “That’s free speech / it’s my opinion”

Defamation liability often turns on whether the statement is:

A verifiable assertion of fact (more actionable), vs
Opinion, satire, or rhetorical hyperbole (more protected)

Context matters: captions, hashtags, insinuations, and accompanying images can transform “opinion” into a defamatory imputation.

B. “It’s true”

Truth can be a defense in certain contexts, but the details are technical: whether the imputation was made with good motives and for justifiable ends can matter in defamation analysis. In practice, harassment cases often hinge on malice and context even when some underlying dispute exists.

C. “That wasn’t me / that account is fake”

Attribution is the hardest part of many cases. Strengthen attribution with:

Multiple witnesses recognizing the account
Prior linked communications
Admissions
Consistent identifiers (photos, writing style, mutual contacts)
Law enforcement platform data requests when feasible

D. “They started it / they harassed me too”

Mutual escalation is common. Retaliation can undermine credibility and invite countercharges. A clean evidence trail and restrained conduct help.

8) Civil remedies that can matter as much as criminal prosecution

Even when criminal prosecution is uncertain or slow, civil tools can provide meaningful relief:

Civil damages under the Civil Code (moral, exemplary damages; abuse of rights; privacy protections)
Injunction-type relief in appropriate cases (fact- and court-dependent)
Writ of habeas data (to protect/rectify personal data and restrain unlawful processing/disclosure in appropriate circumstances)
Protection orders (notably under RA 9262, when applicable)

Civil paths are evidence-heavy but can be powerful when the priority is stopping ongoing harm.

9) Quick reference matrix (behavior → likely law hooks → forum → key evidence)

Defamatory post/video

Laws: RPC libel / cyber libel (RA 10175); Civil Code
Forum: Prosecutor; civil court
Evidence: URL, screenshot + screen recording, witnesses, proof of identification, publication context

Threats (“I will kill you,” “I’ll rape you,” “I’ll ruin your life”)

Laws: RPC threats; RA 11313 if gender-based/sexual; possible cybercrime angle
Forum: Police + prosecutor
Evidence: message logs, screenshots, account identifiers, prior history

Non-consensual intimate images (“revenge porn”)

Laws: RA 9995, RA 11313, possible cybercrime angles
Forum: Police/NBI + prosecutor
Evidence: original files, distribution proof, links, witnesses, device preservation

Doxxing (address/phone/IDs posted)

Laws: RA 10173; threats/coercion; Civil Code; habeas data (proper cases)
Forum: NPC; prosecutor; civil court
Evidence: captured posts, proof data is personal, proof of disclosure and harm, attribution facts

Impersonation / fake accounts

Laws: RA 10175 identity theft, fraud-related offenses; privacy law depending on use
Forum: Police/NBI + prosecutor
Evidence: profile screenshots, link comparisons, admissions, platform reports, corroboration

School cyberbullying

Laws: RA 10627 + possible criminal laws depending on conduct
Forum: School discipline + prosecutor (for crimes)
Evidence: school incident reports, student/witness affidavits, preserved chats/posts

10) Key legal references (Philippine context)

RA 10175 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
RA 10627 – Anti-Bullying Act of 2013
RA 11313 – Safe Spaces Act (Bawal Bastos Law)
RA 9995 – Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009
RA 9262 – Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004
RA 10173 – Data Privacy Act of 2012
RA 9775 – Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009; RA 11930 – Anti-OSAEC and Anti-CSAM Act
RA 7877 – Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995
A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC – Rules on Electronic Evidence
A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC – Rule on Cybercrime Warrants
Revised Penal Code – provisions on libel/defamation, threats, coercion, unjust vexation, related offenses