1) What “harassment by text” usually looks like in law

Philippine law does not have a single, catch-all crime called “text harassment.” Instead, prosecutors and courts match the actual content and pattern of the messages to specific offenses. The same text thread can support multiple charges (e.g., threats + coercion + VAWC), but each charge still needs its own legal elements proven.

Courts typically look at:

Content (threats, insults, sexual demands, defamatory statements, blackmail)
Frequency and persistence (repeated unwanted messages, spamming, stalking behavior)
Relationship of the parties (stranger vs. ex-partner/spouse; workplace/school setting)
Impact (fear, anxiety, disruption, reputational harm)
“Publication” (whether defamatory messages were seen by others)

2) Most common criminal offenses used for harassing text messages

A. Threats (Revised Penal Code)

If the messages contain promises of harm, they may fall under:

Grave threats or light threats (depending on seriousness and conditions/demands)
Threats are stronger cases when the text includes:
- clear intent to intimidate
- specific harm (“I will kill you,” “I will burn your house”)
- a timeframe or plan
- a demand (“if you don’t pay/send… I will…”)

Evidence focus: the exact words, context, sender identity, repeated nature, and the victim’s resulting fear.

B. Coercion / Unjust Vexation (Revised Penal Code)

Where texts are meant to annoy, disturb, pressure, or control someone, common fallback charges are:

Coercion (forcing someone to do something against their will, or preventing them from doing something lawful)
Unjust vexation / “other light coercions” (annoying or irritating conduct that causes disturbance without a more specific crime fitting perfectly)

Examples that often get evaluated under these:

relentless messaging despite clear “stop”
sending messages to disrupt sleep/work
repeated “I’ll show up at your place” intimidation even without explicit violent threats
contacting family/employer repeatedly to shame or pressure

Evidence focus: persistence, clear notice to stop, pattern, and disruption caused.

C. Defamation: Libel vs. No “publication” problem (Revised Penal Code)

If texts contain false accusations or statements that harm reputation:

Libel requires publication (a third person must see/hear it).
- A purely private 1-to-1 text to the victim often struggles on the “publication” element.
- Group chats, forwarded screenshots, messages to your employer/family, or posts derived from the texts strengthen publication.
If the offender spreads rumors or insinuations designed to dishonor someone, prosecutors sometimes explore other reputation-related offenses depending on facts (but “libel” remains the main defamation charge when publication exists).

Evidence focus: who received/seen the defamatory statement besides you, and proof it was sent.

D. “Sextortion,” blackmail, and threats to release intimate content

When messages demand money/sex/continued relationship under threat of exposure: Possible angles include:

Threats / coercion (depending on wording and demand)
Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act (RA 9995) when there is capturing/sharing (or threats to share) intimate images/videos without consent, especially if the content exists or is being distributed
Other crimes may apply if there is extortion-like demand; prosecutors will match the act to the closest penal provision based on the facts.

Evidence focus: the demand + the threat + any proof the intimate content exists, was obtained, or was distributed.

E. Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) – RA 9262 (high-impact when applicable)

If the victim is a woman (or her child) and the offender is:

husband/ex-husband
boyfriend/ex-boyfriend
someone with whom she has (or had) a dating/sexual relationship
someone with whom she shares a child

…then harassing texts can constitute psychological violence (and related acts), especially when there is:

intimidation, threats, stalking-like conduct
repeated harassment causing mental/emotional suffering
controlling behavior (demands, monitoring, isolation)

Why it matters: RA 9262 provides both criminal liability and access to protective orders (discussed below).

Evidence focus: relationship proof + message pattern + documented psychological harm/fear + any escalation.

F. Safe Spaces Act – RA 11313 (Gender-Based Sexual Harassment, including online)

Texts can qualify as gender-based sexual harassment if they involve:

unwanted sexual remarks, requests, demands for sexual favors
sexual “jokes,” repeated sexual content
persistent unwanted romantic/sexual advances
sending sexual images/links
harassment that targets gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity
conduct that creates a hostile, humiliating environment

This law is often relevant even when there is no dating relationship (unlike VAWC, which depends on a specific relationship context).

Evidence focus: sexual/gender-based nature + unwelcome/persistent conduct + context and impact.

G. Cybercrime / ICT-related angles (RA 10175) and electronic evidence

Harassment through texting sometimes intersects with cybercrime theories when the conduct involves:

identity theft / impersonation
distribution of intimate images
use of digital systems to commit other offenses

Even when the core offense is under the Revised Penal Code or special laws, the case still depends heavily on electronic evidence handling (see evidence section).

H. Data Privacy Act (RA 10173) issues (when personal data is weaponized)

If the harasser threatens or actually discloses:

your address, ID numbers, workplace details
private photos, contact lists
personal information obtained through improper means

…there may be data privacy complaints depending on how the data was collected, processed, and disclosed, and whether the offender is in a position that triggers obligations under the Act. This can be complex fact-wise, but it becomes relevant in doxxing-type situations.

I. Workplace or school setting (administrative + potential criminal)

If the harassment occurs within:

workplace (supervisor/co-worker/client)
school/training environment

…there may be parallel remedies:

internal disciplinary proceedings under company/school policies
Safe Spaces Act mechanisms (many institutions are required to adopt policies)
criminal complaints when elements are met (threats, coercion, etc.)

3) Where to file: practical pathways (Philippines)

Common filing venues

Barangay: blotter/record, mediation for certain disputes (not all crimes are compromiseable), immediate documentation, community-based interventions
Police (PNP): for incident reporting, assistance, and referral to prosecutor; women/children desks for VAWC-related concerns
NBI: particularly helpful for forensic preservation and identity tracing in tech-facilitated cases
Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor: where criminal complaints (complaint-affidavit + attachments) are evaluated for probable cause
Courts: for protective orders (notably under RA 9262) and for the criminal case once filed

Venue considerations (important in texting cases)

Often tied to where the victim received/read the message, where parties reside, or where the harmful act took effect—specific rules depend on the offense charged.

4) Evidence needed: what makes a text-harassment case strong

A. The “gold standard” rule: preserve the original, not just screenshots

Screenshots help, but stronger cases usually have:

the original message thread on the device
the SIM/number information
timestamps, sender number, and continuity of the thread
exported messages (where possible) plus screenshots
backup copies (cloud/phone backup) that match the original

Do not delete messages even if they are disturbing; deletion invites authenticity disputes.

B. Evidence checklist (core)

Screenshots of the conversation
- include the sender number, date/time, and ideally the full message sequence
- capture scrolling continuity (not isolated lines)
Screen recording
- slowly scroll the thread showing the number at the top and the messages with timestamps
Device preservation
- keep the phone containing the messages
- avoid factory reset, OS reinstall, or changing apps that may rewrite databases
SIM/number identity clues
- any prior messages showing the sender admitting identity
- contact history, prior conversations, meeting arrangements
Call logs and attempted calls
Corroboration
- witnesses who saw messages arrive or saw the offender use that number
- messages sent to your friends/family/employer (helps for libel “publication,” and pattern)
Context proof
- prior relationship proof (for VAWC): photos together, chat history, admissions, shared child records, etc.
Impact proof
- journal notes (dates, effects)
- medical/psych consult records if any
- work/school incident reports
- proof of changing routines, security measures, or fear responses
Threat escalation proof
- “I’m outside,” “I know where you live,” GPS hints, stalking conduct, photos of your home, etc.

C. Authentication: how electronic texts become admissible evidence

Under Philippine rules on electronic evidence and general evidence principles, the key issue is authenticity:

Can you show the messages are what you claim they are?
Can you link them to the accused (identity attribution)?

Practical ways authenticity is supported:

testimony of the person who received the texts and preserved them
consistent metadata (timestamps, sender number)
matching backups and device contents
telco records (where obtainable through proper process)
forensic extraction by competent authorities (PNP/NBI) in contested cases

D. Chain of custody (practical version)

For texts, chain of custody is simpler than narcotics but still important when contested:

Document when you first noticed the harassment
Note any preservation steps you took (screenshots, backups)
Avoid editing images (cropping is okay but keep originals)
Keep copies in a safe place (email to yourself, cloud folder) with dates

E. Recording calls: a caution

If harassment includes phone calls, recording them can raise issues under the Anti-Wiretapping Act (RA 4200). Text messages are generally preserved by capture/export, not by interception, but voice call recording is legally sensitive.

5) Matching facts to the right complaint: a quick “issue spotting” guide

If the messages say “I will hurt you / kill you / ruin you”

Likely: threats, possibly VAWC (if relationship fits), sometimes coercion if tied to demands.

If the messages demand sex, nude photos, or contain sexual insults

Likely: Safe Spaces Act (RA 11313); may also be VAWC depending on relationship; plus threats/coercion if demands are backed by threats.

If the messages threaten to upload intimate photos/videos

Likely: threats/coercion + possible RA 9995 issues; evidence becomes critical.

If the messages accuse you of crimes or immorality and were sent to others

Likely: libel (publication element), plus other offenses depending on content.

If it’s persistent spamming, humiliation, stalking-like texting without clear threats

Likely: unjust vexation / coercion, and in many contexts Safe Spaces (if gender-based/sexual).

6) Protective and immediate remedies (especially when safety is at risk)

A. Under RA 9262 (VAWC): Protection Orders

When the relationship requirements are met, a victim may seek:

Barangay Protection Order (BPO) (typically for immediate short-term relief)
Temporary Protection Order (TPO)
Permanent Protection Order (PPO)

These can include directives such as:

no contact / no harassment
staying away from residence/workplace/school
removal from the home in certain cases
other safety-related relief allowed by law

Text messages are often key evidence for establishing psychological violence and risk.

B. Incident documentation and safety steps that strengthen the legal record

file a blotter entry as soon as patterns emerge
report threats immediately
save evidence before blocking numbers (blocking is fine, but preserve first)
inform trusted persons and keep copies of evidence outside the device

7) Drafting the complaint: what prosecutors typically expect

A. Complaint-Affidavit structure (practical template)

Parties and identifiers
- your name and details
- respondent’s name (or “John Doe” if unknown), known numbers/accounts
Chronology
- when it started, how often, key turning points
Exact quotes
- reproduce the most important messages verbatim (and reference annex screenshots)
Context
- prior relationship, reason respondent contacted you, prior warnings to stop
Fear/impact
- sleep disruption, anxiety, work impairment, changes in routine
Relief sought
- filing of criminal charges under specified laws
Attachments
- annexes labeled clearly (Annex “A”, “B”, etc.) with short descriptions

B. Organizing annexes (the difference between “messy” and “prosecutor-friendly”)

Annex A: Screenshot set 1 (earliest harassing messages)
Annex B: Screenshot set 2 (threat messages)
Annex C: Messages sent to third parties (publication)
Annex D: Screen recording file (if stored)
Annex E: Call logs
Annex F: Relationship proof (for VAWC)
Annex G: Medical/psych notes or incident reports
Annex H: Barangay blotter/police report

Add a 1-page Index of Annexes.

8) Identity problems: when you only have a number

Cases often hinge on linking the number to the respondent. Helpful attribution evidence includes:

the sender identifying themselves in messages (“Ako ‘to si ___”)
references only the respondent would know
prior known communications with that number
witnesses who saw the respondent using that SIM/phone
any payments, deliveries, or accounts tied to that number
formal investigative steps (police/NBI) to trace ownership where legally available

9) Common defenses and how evidence counters them

“That wasn’t my number / my phone was stolen”

Countered by:

admissions in texts
consistent pattern and unique knowledge
corroborating witnesses
telco/forensic evidence where obtained

“Screenshots are edited”

Countered by:

preserving original device thread
screen recording showing navigation to the thread
message exports/backups
forensic extraction in contested cases

“It was a joke”

Countered by:

repeated nature
victim’s clear request to stop
threatening language, demands, escalation
documented fear/impact

10) Mistakes that weaken cases

deleting parts of the thread to “clean” the phone
saving only cropped screenshots without the number/time visible
confronting the harasser in ways that create confusing counter-allegations (keep communications minimal and evidence-focused)
relying solely on verbal narration without annexes
waiting too long, allowing evidence to be lost (device replacement, app migration, SIM deactivation)

11) Practical “evidence pack” you can prepare today

A PDF folder containing:
- chronological screenshots (with number and timestamps visible)
- an index of screenshots (date/time + short description)
- a written timeline
- a short narrative affidavit draft
- copies of blotter/police incident reports (if any)
Keep:
- the original phone safe
- backups in at least two locations

12) Summary: how Philippine law typically frames texting harassment

Text-message harassment becomes legally actionable when it fits recognized offense elements—most often threats, coercion/unjust vexation, VAWC psychological violence, and gender-based sexual harassment (Safe Spaces Act), with defamation applying when there is publication. Strong cases are built less on emotion and more on organized, authentic, well-preserved electronic evidence plus proof of identity, context, and impact.