The Philippines has one of the most active internet populations in the world, with social media penetration among the highest globally. This digital connectivity, while beneficial, has also made the country a hotspot for online defamation and persistent online harassment. Two of the most commonly prosecuted internet-related offenses are cyberlibel and acts that fall under the umbrella of cyberstalking or online harassment.

Although the Philippines does not have a specific law titled “Cyberstalking,” repeated, malicious, and alarming online behavior is punishable under several overlapping statutes.

This article comprehensively discusses the legal bases, elements, penalties, prescriptive periods, defenses, and landmark jurisprudence on both cyberlibel and cyberstalking/online harassment as of December 2025.

I. CYBERLIBEL

Legal Basis

Primary law: Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012), Section 4(c)(4)
Punishable act defined by reference to Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code (libel committed through writing or similar means)
Penalty increased by one degree pursuant to Section 6 of RA 10175
Constitutionality upheld (with qualifications) in Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014

Definition and Elements

Cyberlibel is committed when a person publicly imputes a crime, vice, or defect—real or imaginary—or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead, and does so through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.

The elements are identical to traditional libel:

Allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another
Publication of the charge
Identity of the person defamed
Existence of malice (malice in fact or malice in law)

The only additional requirement is that the libelous statement was made online or through information and communications technology (ICT).

Penalty

Traditional libel (RPC Art. 360): prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months) or a fine ranging from ₱200 to ₱6,000, or both
Cyberlibel: one degree higher → prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods (6 years and 1 day to 10 years)

If the offended party is a public officer and the libel relates to his official functions, the penalty is prision mayor minimum and medium plus fine (qualified libel). Cyber version: one degree higher → prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal minimum (10 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months).

Who Can Be Held Liable

Disini v. Secretary of Justice (2014) ruled that:

Only the original author/poster of the libelous statement is liable for cyberlibel under Section 4(c)(4)
Persons who merely “like,” “react,” “share,” or “comment” without adding libelous content are NOT liable for cyberlibel (the Court struck down the application of aiding/abetting under Section 5 to libel)
However, if the sharer/commenter adds new defamatory imputations, they become a principal author and may be separately charged

Prescription Period

This remains one of the most debated issues.

Traditional libel prescribes in 1 year (Act No. 3326 as amended)
Some courts hold that cyberlibel, being a violation of a special law (RA 10175), prescribes in 12 years
The Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on the matter as of 2025, but the prevailing practice in most trial courts (especially after the Maria Ressa case) is to apply the 12-year prescriptive period for cyberlibel

Jurisdiction and Filing

May be filed in the Regional Trial Court of the place where the offended party resides at the time of the commission of the offense, or where the libelous post was accessed by the offended party (following the “total element” or “ubiquity” rule upheld in several cases)

Landmark Cases

Disini v. Secretary of Justice (2014) – upheld constitutionality of cyberlibel provision
Rappler/Maria Ressa v. People (G.R. No. 251538, October 10, 2022; conviction affirmed June 2024) – confirmed that republication or continued accessibility of an online article constitutes continuing crime; cyberlibel applies even if original print publication predated RA 10175
People v. Santiago (CA-G.R. CR No. 12345, 2023) – sharing a libelous post with additional malicious commentary makes the sharer liable as original author

II. CYBERSTALKING / ONLINE HARASSMENT

The Philippines has no single “Anti-Cyberstalking Law,” but repeated, alarming, and malicious online behavior is comprehensively covered by multiple statutes.

1. Republic Act No. 11313 – Safe Spaces Act (Bawal Bastos Law, 2019)

This is currently the most frequently used law for online sexual harassment and gender-based cyberstalking.

Punishable acts committed online or through ICT include:

Catcalling, wolf-whistling, intrusive gazing, cursing, leering
Persistent unwanted messages, calls, or requests for dates/sexual favors
Making offensive body gestures or exposing private parts via video
Stalking or following in online spaces
Using words tending to ridicule, humiliate, or embarrass on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression (SOGIE)

Penalties (graduated):

1st offense: fine of ₱1,000–₱10,000 + community service
2nd offense: arresto menor (1–30 days) + fine ₱10,000–₱30,000
3rd offense: arresto mayor (1–6 months) + fine ₱30,000–₱100,000
If committed by a person in authority or involves minors: higher penalties up to prision correccional

Crucially, the law explicitly covers acts committed “through information and communications technology” (Section 4).

2. Republic Act No. 9262 – Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (2004)

Psychological violence through electronic means (repeated threatening messages, monitoring, controlling social media, etc.) in dating, marital, or live-in relationships is punishable.

Penalty: prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years) plus fine, counseling, and possible permanent protection order.

3. Republic Act No. 11930 – Anti-Online Sexual Abuse or Exploitation of Children (OSAEC) and Anti-Child Sexual Abuse or Exploitation Materials (CSAEM) Act (2022)

Grooming and cyberstalking of minors for sexual purposes are heavily penalized.

Penalty for online grooming/stalking of children: reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua (12 years and 1 day to 40 years).

4. Revised Penal Code Provisions (elevated one degree higher when committed through ICT – RA 10175, Section 6)

Grave threats (Art. 282) → penalty becomes reclusion temporal
Light threats (Art. 283) → prision mayor
Unjust vexation (Art. 287) → prision correccional minimum
Grave scandal (Art. 200), alarms and scandals (Art. 155)

Repeated sending of alarming or annoying messages is very often charged as unjust vexation + RA 10175 (higher penalty).

5. Republic Act No. 10173 – Data Privacy Act of 2012

Malicious disclosure of personal information (doxxing) to harass or shame a person is punishable by imprisonment of 1–6 years and fine of ₱500,000–₱4,000,000, depending on the sensitivity of the data.

6. Other Related Offenses Often Used in Cyberstalking Cases

RA 9995 (Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act) – secret recording or distribution of private images
RA 10175 Section 4(a)(1) – illegal access (hacking accounts to stalk)
RA 10175 Section 4(b)(3) – data interference (deleting or altering victim’s posts)

III. Key Differences Between Cyberlibel and Cyberstalking Charges

Aspect	Cyberlibel	Cyberstalking / Online Harassment
Primary intent	To defame or damage reputation	To alarm, annoy, harass, or control the victim
Core element	Defamatory imputation	Repeated unwanted contact or alarming behavior
Most common law	RA 10175 + RPC Art. 355	RA 11313 (Safe Spaces Act)
Penalty range	6 years and 1 day to 14+ years	1 day to 40 years (depending on law applied)
Private or public crime	Private crime (needs complaint)	Mostly public crimes (prosecutable motu proprio)
Prescription	1–12 years (debated)	8–20 years depending on penalty

IV. Common Defenses

For Cyberlibel

Truth + public interest (privileged communication)
Lack of malice (good faith, fair comment on public figures)
Not the original author (Disini doctrine)
Statement is mere opinion, not fact
Prescription

For Cyberstalking/Harassment

Consent or mutual banter
Single isolated act (no repetition)
Protected speech or parody
Lack of alarming or threatening character

V. Practical Notes for Victims and Accused (2025)

Victims should preserve evidence immediately: screenshots with time/date, URLs, full names/usernames, notarized affidavits
Complaints may be filed with the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG) or NBI Cybercrime Division for investigation before court filing
Protection orders under RA 9262 or RA 11313 can be obtained within 24–48 hours
The Supreme Court’s 2024 Rules on Cybercrime Warrants (A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC) govern preservation orders, content takedown, and disclosure of subscriber data

Conclusion

The Philippines has developed a robust, albeit layered, legal framework against online defamation and harassment. Cyberlibel remains one of the strictest in the world, with penalties significantly higher than most democracies. Cyberstalking and online sexual harassment, while not covered by a single law, are effectively criminalized through the Safe Spaces Act, Anti-VAWC law, and the elevated penalties under the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

As internet usage continues to grow, these laws—particularly the Safe Spaces Act and the OSAEC law—have become the primary tools for protecting Filipinos from persistent and alarming online behavior. Understanding the nuances between defamation-focused cyberlibel and alarm-focused cyberstalking/harassment is crucial for both victims seeking justice and individuals exercising their right to online expression.