Criminal complaints, where to file, and what evidence you actually need

This article is general legal information in the Philippine context. Rules and local practice can vary by city/province and by the facts of a case.

1) Start with definitions: “threats” and “harassment” are not one crime

In Philippine criminal law, people commonly say “harassment,” but criminal complaints usually fit into specific offenses under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and various special laws. A single series of acts (messages, stalking-like behavior, public humiliation, repeated calls, doxxing) can support multiple charges, or one charge with aggravating circumstances.

Common criminal law “homes” for threats/harassment

Grave threats (RPC, Art. 282)
Light threats (RPC, Art. 283)
Other light threats / related threat provisions (RPC, Art. 285, depending on the act)
Grave coercion / light coercion (RPC, Arts. 286–287)
Unjust vexation (traditionally used for annoying, insulting, pestering conduct not covered elsewhere; note that charging practice varies because of overlaps with newer laws)
Alarms and scandals (RPC, Art. 155) for disruptive public behavior in certain situations
Slander / oral defamation; libel (RPC, Arts. 358–360), and cyberlibel when done online
Special laws, often the best fit for recurring harassment:
- VAWC (R.A. 9262) when the offender is a spouse/ex-spouse, dating partner, or someone with whom the victim has a child, and the acts cause mental/emotional suffering (including threats, harassment, stalking-like acts, repeated messages).
- Safe Spaces Act (R.A. 11313) for gender-based sexual harassment in streets/public spaces/online/work/education contexts.
- Anti-Bullying Act (R.A. 10627) for school-based bullying procedures (not a general criminal law, but relevant where minors/schools are involved).
- Cybercrime Prevention Act (R.A. 10175) when the act is committed through ICT (online messages/posts) and the underlying offense is covered (e.g., cyberlibel; sometimes used to invoke preservation/disclosure processes for electronic data).

Because “harassment” is broad, your complaint must name the act, the place/platform, the dates, and the exact words/actions, then match them to the elements of an offense.

2) Grave threats (RPC Art. 282): what it is and what must be proven

The core idea

A person commits grave threats when they threaten another with the infliction of a wrong amounting to a crime (e.g., killing, serious physical injuries, arson, kidnapping), and the threat meets the conditions described by law.

“Wrong amounting to a crime”

This is the first gatekeeper. Threats like:

“Papatayin kita.” / “I will kill you.”
“Sasaktan kita nang malala.” / “I’ll break your bones.”
“Susunugin ko bahay mo.” / “I’ll burn your house.”
“Iu-upload ko ang private photos mo unless…” can fall under threats plus other offenses (coercion, extortion-type conduct, privacy offenses), depending on circumstances.

Mere insults (“Ang pangit mo,” “Wala kang kwenta”) are not “grave threats” by themselves (though they may fit defamation, unjust vexation, or special laws).

The usual elements you need to show

In practice, prosecutors look for proof of:

A threat was made (words, writing, gestures, messages).
The threatened act is a criminal wrong.
The threat is directed at a specific person (or clearly identifiable target).
The threat is serious enough in context to be treated as a threat (tone, repetition, proximity, prior history, capability, accompanying acts).
If the threat is accompanied by a condition (“If you don’t do X, I will do Y”), that can affect how the offense is classified and penalized and may overlap with coercion/extortion.

Important practical note: It is not always necessary that the offender intended to carry it out, but the case strengthens when you can show seriousness (e.g., “I’m outside your house,” sending a weapon photo, naming your address, prior assault history, repeated threats).

3) Harassment patterns and the common charges they map to

Harassment often involves repeated acts. Prosecutors typically look for the best legal fit rather than the label “harassment.”

A) Repeated unwanted contact (calls, messages, DMs)

Unjust vexation (where applicable)
Coercion (if done to force you to do/stop doing something)
VAWC (R.A. 9262) (if relationship covered; repeated messages and threats can qualify as psychological violence)
Safe Spaces Act (R.A. 11313) (if gender-based sexual harassment or sexually colored acts, including online)

B) Threats + “Do this or else…”

Grave threats (if the wrong threatened is a crime)
Coercion (force/compel)
Potentially robbery/extortion-type theories depending on what is demanded and the facts (charging varies; prosecutors may treat as threats/coercion rather than a property crime absent specific elements)

C) Public shaming / false accusations / rumor-spreading

Oral defamation / slander (spoken)
Libel (written/posted)
Cyberlibel (online publication)
Safe Spaces Act if it involves gender-based harassment or sexualized attacks, depending on the content and context

D) Doxxing (posting address/phone), impersonation, account takeovers

Potentially libel/cyberlibel (if defamatory)
Other cyber-related offenses depending on the act (identity misuse, illegal access, etc.)
VAWC / Safe Spaces if the harm and context fit

E) “I’ll upload your private photos/videos”

This can overlap with:

Threats (depending on what is threatened and how)
Special laws on privacy/sexual content depending on the content, consent, and distribution (charging is fact-sensitive)

4) Where to file: barangay, police, prosecutor, court — and how they interact

A) Barangay conciliation (Katarungang Pambarangay)

For many disputes between individuals in the same city/municipality, barangay conciliation is often a first step unless an exception applies. Exceptions commonly include situations where:

Immediate court action is needed (urgent protection, imminent danger)
The case involves certain serious offenses or circumstances
The respondent resides in a different city/municipality (fact-specific)

Even when barangay applies, threat cases involving danger are often handled with urgency via police/prosecutor pathways.

B) Police (PNP) and investigative units

You can report to the local police station.
For online harassment/threats, many complainants coordinate with PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG) or NBI Cybercrime Division for preservation, tracing, and documentation support (especially where fake accounts, anonymous numbers, or deleted posts are involved).

Police reports are helpful, but most criminal cases still require filing a complaint affidavit with the prosecutor (unless it is a situation allowing warrantless arrest / inquest).

C) Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor (the usual route)

Most cases begin by filing:

Complaint-Affidavit (your sworn narrative and allegations)
Supporting affidavits of witnesses (if any)
Documentary and electronic evidence

The prosecutor conducts preliminary investigation (or in some cases, inquest), then decides whether there is probable cause to file an Information in court.

D) Courts: criminal case + possible protection orders

Depending on the law involved:

VAWC (R.A. 9262) allows Barangay Protection Order (BPO) (limited, barangay-issued), and Temporary/Permanent Protection Orders through court.
Other situations may rely on standard criminal process plus possible civil remedies.

Protection orders are often the fastest way to stop ongoing contact when the case fits VAWC.

5) The complaint itself: what makes prosecutors take it seriously

A strong complaint is specific, chronological, and evidence-led.

A) Your Complaint-Affidavit should include:

Complete identities: your full name, address; respondent’s name, aliases, known accounts, numbers, workplace, address.
Relationship and background: prior conflicts, prior violence, history of threats (with dates).
A timeline: date/time, platform, exact words, what you did in response, what happened next.
Exact quotes of threats/harassing statements (copy-paste if messages).
Context that shows seriousness:
- Respondent knows where you live/work/school
- Respondent has shown capability (past violence, weapons, stalking-like proximity)
- Escalation pattern, repetition, third-party involvement
Your harm and fear: anxiety, disruption, need to change routine, missed work, medical consults—especially relevant for VAWC/psychological harm and for assessing seriousness.
Relief sought: filing of criminal charges; request for referral for cyber tracing; request to subpoena records where needed.

B) Witness affidavits matter

Even one corroborating witness helps:

Someone who saw the threat happen
Someone who received the same messages
Someone who heard the call on speaker
A coworker who saw the respondent loitering or confronting you

6) Evidence checklist: what you need and how to preserve it

Threat/harassment cases are won or lost on proof. The best evidence is contemporaneous, complete, and authenticated.

A) Messages, chats, DMs (Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, Viber, WhatsApp, SMS)

Collect:

Screenshots showing:
- The threatening message
- The sender profile/account
- Date/time stamps (or the device time visible)
- The full conversation context (scroll above/below)
Screen recording scrolling through the thread (harder to fake than single screenshots)
Exported data where possible (download your account data, chat exports)

Preserve:

Do not edit or crop aggressively; keep originals.
Save to multiple locations (cloud + external drive).
Keep the phone where it appeared, if possible, until your lawyer/investigator advises otherwise.

B) Calls and voicemails

Save voicemails, call logs, and SMS notifications.
If threats are made over a “private communication,” be careful with recordings:
- The Philippines has an Anti-Wiretapping law (R.A. 4200) that can make certain secret recordings illegal and unusable, depending on circumstances.
- Safer alternatives: speakerphone with a witness present, immediate reporting, contemporaneous notes, call logs, and lawful data requests through authorities.

C) Social media posts, stories, comments, livestream threats

Screenshot the post with URL, timestamp, and account name.
Use screen recording showing you opening the account and the post.
If possible, have a witness who can attest they saw the post before deletion.

D) In-person incidents (approaching your house, workplace, school)

CCTV footage (request promptly; many systems overwrite quickly)
Photos/videos taken openly in public
Security guard blotter logs
Building admin incident reports
Witness statements

E) Medical and psychological records (when relevant)

ER records, medico-legal, psychiatric/psych consults
Receipts and certificates These support seriousness, impact, and in certain cases are central (e.g., psychological violence contexts).

F) Authentication and “chain” of electronic evidence

Prosecutors and courts often ask:

Who captured it? When? On what device?
Is it a true and accurate representation?
Has it been altered?

Good practice:

Keep the original files (not just screenshots sent through chat apps that compress).
Write a short evidence log (date captured, device used, what it shows).
If printing, ensure printouts clearly show the account identifiers, timestamps, and message content.

G) Tracing anonymous accounts/numbers

If the respondent uses fake profiles or burner numbers, authorities may need:

Platform logs, subscriber information, IP data This is typically obtained through lawful processes (subpoena/court order) initiated during investigation/prosecution. Provide:
Profile links, usernames, user IDs if visible
Message request links
Phone numbers, SIM details if known
Any payment handles, delivery details, or other identifiers used in threats

7) “Evidence of intent” and “seriousness” — what strengthens grave threat cases

Threat cases become far stronger when you can show:

Specificity: “Tomorrow 8 PM, I’ll stab you outside Gate 2.”
Knowledge of your location: sending your address, photos of your house, workplace details
Capability/proximity: “I’m outside,” photos at your location, prior assaults
Repetition and escalation: multiple threats over days/weeks
Conditional demands: “Give me X / do X or else…”
Third-party corroboration: someone else received/observed the threat

8) Common defenses and pitfalls (and how complainants avoid them)

A) “It was a joke / not serious”

Countered by context: repetition, escalation, proximity, specificity, and your contemporaneous reaction (reporting, witnesses, safety steps).

B) “Fake account — not me”

Strengthen attribution with:

Patterns: same phrases, nicknames, writing style
Linked identifiers: same phone number, email, mutual contacts
Prior direct messages from known account
Witness testimony
Platform data requests through proper legal channels

C) Altered or incomplete screenshots

Avoid:

Cropped images with no account name/time
Screenshots forwarded many times Use:
Screen recordings + full thread captures + original files

D) Illegal recording issues

Secretly recording private communications can create legal and admissibility problems. Prefer lawful documentation routes and corroboration.

E) Overcharging or mislabeling

A complaint titled “harassment” but lacking a clear statutory fit can stall. Better: describe the acts precisely and cite the most fitting offenses (e.g., grave threats/coercion/libel/VAWC/Safe Spaces) based on the relationship and content.

9) Practical filing package: what people typically submit to the prosecutor

A complete set often looks like:

Complaint-Affidavit (notarized)
Annexes labeled and referenced in the affidavit:
- Annex “A”: screenshots of threats (with dates)
- Annex “B”: screen recording file (USB/drive as required)
- Annex “C”: blotter/police report
- Annex “D”: witness affidavit(s)
- Annex “E”: medical/psych documents (if any)
Index of annexes
Copy of IDs and proof of identity as required for notarization/filing
For cyber matters: URLs, profile links, account identifiers, and a short note requesting preservation/tracing steps

Local prosecutor’s offices differ on whether they accept USB drives, printed screenshots only, QR links, or require specific formatting—so complainants often prepare both printed and digital copies.

10) Choosing the best legal path: quick guide

When “grave threats” is usually the anchor

The respondent threatens a criminal harm (kill, burn, seriously injure, kidnap)
There is identifiable sender + preserved communications
There is context showing seriousness

When VAWC is often the strongest tool

Offender is spouse/ex, dating partner/ex, or someone you share a child with
Conduct causes mental or emotional suffering (threats, harassment, repeated contact, humiliation)
You need protection orders to stop contact quickly

When Safe Spaces Act is a strong fit

Conduct is gender-based sexual harassment, including online sexual harassment, catcalling-type behavior, sexually colored insults, unwanted sexual remarks, threats tied to sex/gender

When libel/cyberlibel is the main route

The core wrong is reputational harm through publication of defamatory statements (posts, captions, articles, public comments)

When coercion applies

The respondent is forcing you to do something or stop something through intimidation or pressure

11) Safety and documentation steps that also help legally (without escalating risk)

Do not engage in prolonged arguments; keep responses minimal, if any, and preserve everything.
Tell trusted persons and create witnesses (someone with you during calls/encounters).
Report promptly (police blotter creates a time-stamped record).
Change privacy settings, secure accounts (2FA), and document any account takeover attempts.
Request CCTV early where applicable.

12) One-page evidence “minimums” (what tends to be enough to move forward)

A prosecutor can often proceed when you can provide:

At least one clear threatening message showing sender identity (or strong identifiers), content, and date/time; plus
Context showing it is not idle (repetition, proximity, prior history); plus
Your sworn affidavit that ties the annexes to your narrative; and ideally
One corroborating witness or an official record (blotter, admin report, CCTV request trail)

For anonymous online threats, the minimum often shifts to:

Preserved screenshots/screen recordings + URLs + timestamps + consistent identifiers, then authorities use lawful requests to identify the person behind the account.