Here’s a thorough, Philippines-focused legal explainer on calling out “bogus buyers” on Facebook—what can make a post defamatory, the cyberlibel overlay, practical risk-reduction tactics, and what remedies are available on both sides. This is general information, not legal advice.

Defamation Issues in Facebook Posts Naming “Bogus Buyers” (Philippines)

Quick primer: libel, slander, and cyberlibel

Libel (Revised Penal Code, Art. 353 et seq.) is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice, defect, or act, tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt, made in writing or similarly permanent form.
Slander is the spoken form.
Cyberlibel is libel committed through a computer system (e.g., Facebook posts, captions, comments, stories, public groups, marketplace listings, and DMs/screenshots that are forwarded). Under the Cybercrime law, penalties are generally one degree higher than offline libel. It also unlocks digital-forensics tools (data preservation, search/seizure of computer data, etc.).

Elements prosecutors look for

Defamatory imputation (e.g., “scammer,” “magnanakaw,” “estafador,” “serial bogus buyer”).
Identifiability (the person can be recognized—even without full name—through photos, tags, handles, addresses, or context).
Publication (it reached someone other than you and the person defamed; “Friends,” “Public,” private groups, or forwarded DMs usually suffice).
Malice (presumed in criminal libel; can be rebutted by showing good faith, fair comment, or privilege).

Calling someone a “scammer” or accusing them of estafa is often defamatory per se because it imputes a crime. Posting face photos, IDs, or addresses raises privacy and security issues on top of defamation risk.

What makes Facebook posts especially risky

Amplification: shares, re-posts, and comments multiply “publication.” Each re-share can be a separate act.
Tagging: tagging a person (or their employer/school) can show intent to shame, aggravating damages.
Screenshots of chats/IDs: can expose personal and sensitive personal information, raising Data Privacy compliance issues.
Hashtags and captions: words like “scammer,” “beware,” “blacklist,” plus emojis (🤑🕵️‍♂️) and edits can show malice or ridicule.
Group posts: “buyer blacklist” groups can look like organized publication, and admins/mods can face exposure if they curate or encourage defamatory content.

Defenses, privileges, and their limits

1) Truth + good motives + justifiable ends

Truth alone isn’t a complete defense in criminal libel; it usually must be shown that you posted for a legitimate purpose (e.g., protecting the public from a real, documented fraud) and in good faith (accurate, fair, not needlessly humiliating).

2) Qualifiedly privileged communications

Communications made in the performance of a legal/moral duty or to a person with a corresponding interest (e.g., reporting to the platform, the courier, the police, your bank, your marketplace’s dispute team) are often privileged if made in good faith and to the proper audience.
Public posts to the entire internet rarely qualify. Targeted reports fare better.

3) Fair comment on matters of public interest

Protects opinion on matters of public concern; does not protect false statements of fact about a private individual’s alleged crimes. “In my opinion, X is a scammer” will not immunize a statement if you imply undisclosed false facts.

4) Good faith / lack of malice

Careful, measured language, neutral tone, and evidence-based reporting help negate malice—but won’t save a post that asserts untrue criminal conduct.

Public vs. private persons: Criticism of public officials/figures enjoys more leeway (higher “actual malice” bar). Bogus-buyer posts typically target private individuals, where leeway is narrow.

Data Privacy overlay (even if your facts are true)

Names, phone numbers, addresses, photos, government IDs, screenshots of conversations, and payment details are personal data; some are sensitive personal information.
Publicly posting these without proper basis or consent can trigger administrative sanctions and civil liability under the Data Privacy framework—especially if posted beyond what’s necessary to resolve a transaction dispute.

Related criminal/civil angles that appear in these disputes

Estafa (swindling) accusations by sellers: be cautious—failed pickup, COD refusal, or last-minute cancellation is not automatically estafa; criminal fraud needs deceit and damage elements.
Unjust vexation, grave threats/coercion, stalking, or gender-based online sexual harassment may arise from harassing call-out posts.
Civil Code torts (Arts. 19, 20, 21—abuse of rights, acts contrary to morals/good customs) support damages claims even where criminal libel falters.

Business reality check: what you can safely do instead of naming & shaming

Use platform remedies: File a fraud/NCII/harassment/marketplace violation report inside Facebook/Marketplace; provide evidence privately. Ask for account review, warning, or suspension.
Contractual safeguards:
- Require small, non-refundable reservation fees or prepaid orders for high-risk buyers.
- Use written terms: cancellation windows, restocking fees (reasonable), cut-off times, and identity verification clauses.
- Implement order confirmation (OTP/short invoice) and proof-of-life checks for new accounts.
Internal blacklist, not public: Keep an internal incident log (name/handle, screenshots, dates) for your team. Share only with staff, platforms, delivery partners, or banks who need it to act.
Escalate to proper channels: If you truly have fraud, compile evidence and go to PNP/ACG or NBI Cybercrime, or your bank/courier’s fraud desk.
Neutral notices: Post general warnings without identifying anyone (e.g., “We’ve seen fake payment proof going around—here’s how to verify a deposit”). Provide verification steps, not accusations.

If you still plan to post: a risk-minimizing checklist

Stick to verifiable facts: “Order #1234 was cancelled at 5:14 PM; payment proof was rejected by Bank X as altered.” Avoid labels like “scammer.”
No names/faces/IDs: Redact faces, numbers, QR codes, addresses, and account names unless disclosure is strictly necessary and you’ve cleared legal risks.
Limit the audience: If you must warn, prefer direct messages to affected customers or a closed channel with a legitimate interest (team chat, private buyers’ group with clear purpose and rules).
Use cautious language: “suspected fraudulent proof,” “unable to verify payment,” “transaction cancelled under store policy.”
Invite reply: “If we made a mistake, please contact us to clarify.” Good faith helps.
Keep evidence (original files, metadata, full chat exports) but don’t over-publish it.
Avoid ridicule (memes, insults, emojis); it screams malice.
Document your purpose: consumer safety, payment verification, or policy enforcement—not revenge.

For the person who was named online (accused “bogus buyer”)

Immediate steps

Preserve evidence: full-page screenshots showing URL, date/time, audience, and all comments/reshare chains; save original photos/videos if you have them.
Platform report: Use Facebook’s defamation/harassment tools; request takedown for false statements and doxxing.
Demand letter (via counsel): Ask for retraction, apology, and takedown, citing defamation and data-privacy violations; give a short deadline.
File cases if needed:
- Criminal: libel/cyberlibel at PNP-ACG/NBI Cybercrime or the prosecutor’s office (with your evidence list).
- Civil: damages under the Civil Code; injunction to stop further posts.
- Data Privacy: administrative complaint for unlawful disclosure/processing of personal data.
Reputation repair: Keep your own public statements measured; avoid counter-defamation. Let counsel handle press/platform escalations.

Proof points that help accused persons

Falsity: show receipts/logs contradicting the post.
Context: demonstrate the poster omitted key exonerating facts (e.g., seller changed terms, failed to deliver).
Damages: lost clients, job issues, threats, anxiety—keep medical or business records.

Procedure notes that often matter in real life

Venue: In online cases, venue can hinge on where any element occurred or where the offended party resides; strategy matters.
Deadlines: Act quickly. Cyber cases can have different prescriptive periods from traditional libel; don’t cut it close.
Multiple posts/shares: Each can be a separate count; identify first publication dates and re-publications.
Minors: Posting a minor’s name/photo invites stronger legal consequences and faster platform action—avoid it entirely.

Damages & penalties snapshot

Criminal (libel/cyberlibel): fines and imprisonment (cyberlibel carries stiffer penalties than offline); courts may order takedown and seizure of devices used.
Civil: Moral, exemplary, and actual damages, plus attorney’s fees.
Administrative (Privacy): compliance orders, penalties, and orders to erase or restrict processing.

Templates you can adapt (short and safe)

A. Neutral consumer warning (public-facing)

We’ve seen attempts to use altered payment screenshots. To protect everyone, please expect: (1) verification before shipping, (2) possible hold until funds clear, and (3) cancellations under our posted policy. If you have concerns about your order, message us directly. Thank you!

B. Private notice to a buyer (direct message)

Hi [Name], we can’t verify the payment for Order #[ ]. We’ll place the order on hold for 12 hours pending proof from the bank/app. If we don’t hear back, we’ll cancel under our policy. If there’s an error on our side, please let us know so we can fix it.

C. Internal incident log entry (do not post publicly)

Order/Invoice #:
Buyer handle & link:
Date/time (chat, payment, cancellation):
What happened (factual only):
Evidence saved (files, headers, device):
Actions taken (report to platform/courier/bank; customer notified; order cancelled):
Next steps (refund check, blacklist internal only):

Bottom line

Publicly naming and shaming “bogus buyers” on Facebook is a high-risk path that can satisfy all elements of cyberlibel and trigger Data Privacy liability—especially if you use words that impute crimes or share personal data.
Truth + good motives and qualified privilege defenses are narrow online; they work best when you report privately to parties with a legitimate interest (platforms, police, banks, couriers), not the general public.
If you’re a seller, lean on contractual safeguards, private reporting, and internal controls. If you’re the one named, preserve evidence, demand takedown, and consider coordinated criminal/civil/privacy actions.

If you want, tell me your exact situation (what was posted, screenshots, audience setting, and what loss you suffered or fear), and I’ll map out a tailored action plan and a one-page evidence pack for quick filing and platform takedown.