The unauthorized and malicious posting of Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) footage on social media has become a prevalent method of "public shaming" in the Philippines. While individuals often post such footage to seek "social justice," doing so can expose the uploader to severe criminal liability under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175) in relation to the Revised Penal Code.

1. The Legal Basis: What Constitutes Cyber Libel?

Libel is defined under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice, or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person.

When this act is committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future, it is classified as Cyber Libel under Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175.

2. Elements of the Crime

To successfully prosecute a case for the malicious posting of CCTV footage, four elements must be proven:

Imputation of a Discreditable Act: The posting of the video must imply that the person captured is committing a crime (e.g., theft) or an immoral act.
Publication: The footage was shared on a platform where third parties could see it (Facebook, TikTok, X, etc.).
Identity of the Victim: The person in the CCTV footage must be identifiable.
Existence of Malice: This is the most critical element. Malice exists when the uploader intends to injure the reputation of the person in the video. In Philippine law, "malice in law" is presumed if the imputation is defamatory, even if it is true, unless a justifiable motive is proven.

3. The Role of the Data Privacy Act (R.A. 10173)

Beyond libel, the unauthorized posting of CCTV footage often violates the Data Privacy Act of 2012. CCTV recordings that identify individuals are considered personal information.

Processing for Unauthorized Purposes: Using CCTV for "shaming" rather than its intended purpose (security and crime prevention) is a violation.
Malicious Disclosure: Under Section 31 of R.A. 10173, any person who, with malice or in bad faith, discloses unwarranted or false information relative to any personal information is subject to imprisonment and heavy fines.

4. Common Defenses and Their Limitations

Many uploaders argue they were simply "warning the public." However, Philippine jurisprudence is strict:

Truth is not an absolute defense: Even if the person in the video actually committed a mistake or a crime, posting it publicly with the intent to humiliate rather than reporting it to the authorities (PNP or NBI) can still constitute libel.
Public Interest: If the person in the video is a public official or the matter is of genuine public concern, the standards for proving malice are higher, but this rarely applies to private disputes or "viral" neighborhood incidents.

5. Penalties

Cyber Libel carries a significantly higher penalty than ordinary libel. Under R.A. 10175, the penalty is prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years) or a fine ranging from ₱40,000 to the maximum amount determined by the court, or both. Additionally, the victim can file for civil damages (moral and exemplary damages).

6. Procedural Steps for Filing a Case

If you are a victim of a malicious CCTV post, the following steps are generally taken:

Preservation of Evidence: Take screenshots of the post, the captions, the comments, and the number of shares. Use "screen recording" to capture the context of the post.
Verification of Identity: Identify the account owner. If the account is anonymous, a request for "Cyberwarrent" (Disclosure of Computer Data) may be required through the court.
Affidavit-Complaint: Prepare a formal complaint-affidavit detailing how the post was defamatory and identifying the elements of the crime.
Filing: File the complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Cybercrime Division, the Philippine National Police (PNP) Anti-Cybercrime Group, or directly with the Office of the City Prosecutor.

7. Important Note on "Trial by Publicity"

The Philippine Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the "shaming" culture does not replace the judicial system. If a crime is caught on CCTV, the legal recourse is to submit the footage to the police or the prosecutor as evidence in a criminal complaint, not to post it on social media to incite a "digital lynch mob."