DEFAMATION ARISING FROM ALLEGED “FAKE” SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS

Philippine Legal Framework & Practice Notes (June 2025)

This write-up is an academic overview. For legal advice on a specific case, consult Philippine counsel.

1 Fundamental Concepts

Term	Core idea	Key Philippine source
Defamation	Injury to reputation by false, malicious imputation	Art. 353–362, Revised Penal Code (RPC)
Libel	Defamation in writing or a similar means (includes posts, comments, messages, images, videos)	RPC Art. 355
Slander	Defamation committed orally	RPC Art. 358
Cyber-libel	Libel “committed through a computer system or any other similar means”	§4(c)(4), Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175)
Identity Theft	Acquiring, using or misusing identifying information of another	§4(b)(3), RA 10175
Civil Defamation	Independent civil action for damages	Civil Code Arts. 19-20-26, 33 & 2176
Fake Account	An account that impersonates a real person or purports to be an entirely fictitious persona	No single statute defines it, but see RA 10175, §4(b)(3); NPC Advisory Opinions; platform TOS

2 Elements & Burdens in a Criminal Case

Criminal libel (offline or online) has four classic elements (People v. Domasian, G.R. 211356, 10 Jan 2018, echoing early jurisprudence):

Defamatory imputation – allegation, by words, acts or representations, of a discreditable act/condition.
Publication – communication to at least one person other than the subject.
Identifiability – person defamed is identifiable, even if unnamed.
Malice – presumed once the first three elements concur; complainant need not prove intent, but accused may rebut by showing good motives and justifiable ends (Art. 361 RPC).

Extra layer for cyber-libel: The defamatory content must be “committed through a computer system,” which the Supreme Court interprets broadly (Disini v. SOJ, G.R. 203335, 11 Feb 2014).

Standard of proof: Beyond reasonable doubt (criminal). Prescription: One (1) year for traditional libel (Art. 90 RPC); five (5) years for cyber-libel (Sec. 4(c)(4), RA 10175, as qualified by Art. 90 RPC and People v. Tulawie, G.R. 217274, 6 Apr 2021).

3 Civil Actions & Damages

Even if no criminal case prospers, a victim may sue for damages under:

Civil Code Art. 33 – independent civil action for defamation may proceed separately from or simultaneously with the criminal case.
Art. 26 – “respect for the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind” (useful where an imposter account exposes private photos).
Art. 19–20 (Abuse of Rights) – where malicious creation of a fake profile causes pecuniary loss.
Art. 2176 – quasi-delict, if negligence (e.g., platform employee negligently allows persistent fake profiles).

Damages may include moral, exemplary, nominal and actual damages. Recent judgements in cyber-libel run between ₱200 000 – ₱1 000 000 moral damages, plus ₱50 000-₱200 000 fine and/or imprisonment (subject to judicial discretion and Indeterminate Sentence Law).

4 Fake Account Scenarios & Corresponding Offences

Scenario	Possible charges	Notes
Impersonation of a private individual, posting scandalous “confessions”	● Cyber-libel (RA 10175) ● Identity theft (§4(b)(3)) ● Unjust vexation (Art. 287 RPC)	Identity theft is separately punishable (6–12 years).
Impersonation of a public official to issue false public statements	● Cyber-libel ● Usurpation of authority (Art. 177 RPC) ● Falsification (Art. 171(2) RPC if public document forged)	If done during election period → additional liability under Omnibus Election Code.
Using a pseudonymous “troll” account to smear a competitor	● Cyber-libel ● Unfair competition (RA 8293, if trademarks exploited)	Corporate officers may be directly liable (People v. Surot, G.R. 215947, 5 Dec 2018).
Fabricated nudes or “deepfakes”	● Cyber-libel ● Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act (RA 9995) ● Safe Spaces Act (RA 11313)	If minor → Anti-Child Pornography Act (RA 9775) w/ life imprisonment.

5 Investigating a Fake Account

Evidence preservation
- Take notarised screenshots; record URL, time stamp, and device details.
- Use Rule on Electronic Evidence (REE, A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC) for authentication (Sec. 1, 2, 11).
Tracing the operator
- Platform requests (Meta, X, TikTok) via Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) or local subpoena duces tecum (Sec. 14, RA 10175).
- IP logs – NBI-CCD or PNP-ACG may request from ISPs under a court warrant (Sec. 12, 13, RA 10175).
Filing a complaint
- Sworn complaint-affidavit at NBI Cybercrime Division, PNP-ACG or Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor.
- Include certified true copies of defamatory posts, proof of identity, chronology of events, screenshots of impersonation, and damage assessment.
Prosecutorial resolution & Information
- Prosecutor assesses probable cause. If dismissed, aggrieved party may file a petition for review (Sec. 4, DOJ Circular 70-2000) or elevate to Secretary of Justice.
Trial & judgment
- Regional Trial Court (RTC), designated Cybercrime Court (A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC); venue may be where post was first accessed or where complainant resides (Sec. 21, RA 10175).

6 Defences & Mitigating Circumstances

Defence	Requisite showing	Practical tip
Truth	Imputation is true and publication made with good motives & justifiable ends (Art. 361)	Accused shoulders burden once raised (reverse onus).
Qualified privilege	Private communication to lawful authority (Art. 354(1)) or fair, true report of official proceeding (Art. 354(2))	Still liable if acted with actual malice.
Fair comment	Statement is opinion-based on facts of public interest	Applies more readily to public figures.
Lack of publication/identifiability	Post was never seen by a third person or target unidentifiable	Hard to prove with social-media analytics logs.
Good faith / No malice	Reasonable precautions, immediate takedown, apology	May mitigate penalties even if guilt established (Art. 13 RPC).

7 Platform Liability

Safe-harbor principle (E-Commerce Act, RA 8792, Sec. 30) – ISPs generally not liable for content they do not modify.
Actual knowledge & control test (Disini; Diocares v. Dycoco, G.R. 236785, 9 Jun 2021) – once platform is notified and fails to act within a reasonable time, possible liability for aiding/abetting (§5 RA 10175).
Notice-and-takedown procedures must observe user due process (NPC Advisory 2020-03 on Content Removal).

8 Freedom of Expression v. Reputation

Constitution Art. III §4 – no law abridging freedom of speech, etc.
Balancing test: SC recognises that cyber-libel “plainly involves expressive content”; yet, protecting reputation is “a valid exercise of police power.” (Disini).
Public figure doctrine – Actual malice must be proven (New York Times v. Sullivan persuasive; adopted in Borjal v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 126466, 14 Jan 1999).
Chilling effect concerns – Several bills filed (2022-2024) to decriminalise libel; none enacted as of 13 June 2025.

9 Related Statutes & Rules

Data Privacy Act (RA 10173) – unlawful processing of personal data may exist in tandem.
Anti-Red-Tagging Act (pending, re-filed 19th Congress) – may provide safer-harbor for activists.
SIM Registration Act (RA 11934, 2022) – helps trace mobile-based fake accounts but adds compliance burdens.
Rules on Cybercrime Warrants (A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC, 2018) – procedures for preservation, disclosure, interception & search/seizure of computer data.
Draft NIRR on Deepfake Regulation (DICT, 2024) – still in consultation; may criminalise malicious synthetic media.

10 Practical Checklist for Victims

Preserve evidence (screenshots, URLs, device logs; get them notarised or use hash values).
Verify identity theft (does the profile use your photos/name?).
Send takedown request to platform (Meta: https://www.facebook.com/help/fakeaccount).
File police blotter or NBI walk-in complaint (within 5 years for cyber-libel).
Prepare:
- Government ID
- Sworn affidavit narrating events
- Digital copies on USB/DVD (as per REE)
Engage counsel for drafting complaint or demand letter.
Monitor case status; attend preliminary investigation hearings; comply with subpoenas.
Consider civil suit if substantial reputational or economic damage.
Protect mental health – consider counselling; cyberbullying can be traumatic.
Plan communications – public statement may mitigate reputational harm but consult counsel first (avoid sub judice).

11 For Accused or Account Administrators

Preserve conversation logs—alteration may be construed as admission of guilt.
Document intent, satire disclaimers, or opinion-based nature of posts.
Cooperate with lawful orders but secure warrants before surrendering private data.
Seek legal advice early; possibilities for mediation or compromise (Art. 365 RPC allows settlement in some defamation cases).

12 Emerging Trends (2024-2025)

AI-Generated “Face-swap” scams – deepfake impersonations being litigated under cyber-libel + identity theft + voyeurism.
Employer v. Employee – resignations forced by anonymous “exposé pages” have triggered combined labor arbitration and libel suits.
Influencer marketing – brands suing trolls over fake accounts spreading “hex dump” review videos (product disparagement suits using libel + unfair competition).
Political “narco-lists” – allegations made via new accounts on X/Twitter; courts granting ex parte warrants to identify creators.
Platform self-regulation – Facebook’s “Verified Government Page” badge (2024) helps inhibit impersonation, may serve as civil defence if platform acted swiftly.

13 Possible Law Reform Directions

Proposal	Status (June 2025)	Potential impact
House Bill 5801 (“Libel Decriminalisation Act”)	Pending Second Reading	Would delete Art. 355, retain civil remedy only
“Anti-Deepfake Law” (SB 2387)	Committee on Science & Tech	Adds §4(c)(5) to RA 10175 criminalising malicious synthetic media
NPC Draft Circular on Imposter Accounts	Public comment phase	Would impose 24-hour takedown duty upon platforms once identity verified

Final Takeaways

Criminal liability for defamation through a fake account is real, severe and often additional to identity-theft charges.
Cyber-libel’s 5-year prescription window, higher penalties and venue flexibility make it a powerful remedy.
Electronic evidence rules and platform cooperation are central—capture, authenticate, preserve early.
Balancing free speech and reputation rights remains contentious; legislative changes may decriminalise libel, but nothing is certain yet.

Prepared 13 June 2025, Manila.