How to File a Case for Non-Consensual Photo/Video Sharing and Online Defamation in the Philippines

(RA 9995 – Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009; RA 10175 – Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012)

This article is a practical, Philippine-focused guide. It explains the elements of the crimes, evidence you need, where and how to file, possible defenses, remedies (criminal, civil, and injunctive), what to expect procedurally, and strategic tips for victims—including minors. It’s general information, not legal advice.

1) What conduct is punishable?

A. Non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII) — RA 9995

It is unlawful to take, copy, share, sell, distribute, publish, or broadcast any photo/video of:

a person’s sexual act, or
the private area of a person when any of these is without that person’s consent.

Key points:

Consent to record ≠ consent to share. Even if the recording was consensual, distributing it without express consent violates RA 9995.
The law covers all channels (phones, messaging apps, cloud, social media, websites, etc.).
Victim privacy is protected. Publishing information that reveals a victim’s identity is itself penalized.
Both the original taker/uploader and anyone who re-uploads/re-shares without consent can be liable.

Penalties (criminal): imprisonment and fines (RA 9995). Courts may also award civil damages and order injunctive relief (e.g., removal/blocking by court order).

B. Online defamation (cyber libel) — RA 10175 + Revised Penal Code (RPC)

“Libel” is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice, defect, or any act/condition tending to dishonor or discredit a person, published (made available to others), and the target is identifiable. When libel is committed through a computer system (e.g., posts, comments, blogs, online news), RA 10175 applies and imposes a penalty one degree higher than ordinary libel under the RPC.

Key points:

Elements to prove: (1) defamatory imputation, (2) identifiability, (3) publication (even a single view by someone other than the victim), (4) malice (generally presumed, but special rules apply; see defenses).
Authors of online posts can be prosecuted for cyber libel. Re-posting can amount to a new publication if you create or adopt the defamatory content as your own.
Time limits are tight: libel generally prescribes in 1 year from first publication (see §10 below for notes on timing and republication).

2) Which law should you use?

If the main harm is intimate images/videos shared without consent → RA 9995 (you may also have civil claims like privacy, moral damages).
If the main harm is false or malicious statements damaging reputation → Cyber libel under RA 10175 (which enhances the RPC penalty for libel committed online).
Many cases involve both (e.g., a post sharing an intimate video and adding defamatory captions). You may file under both laws in the same complaint, plus related laws when applicable (e.g., Data Privacy Act, Safe Spaces Act, VAWC when intimate partners are involved, or child-protection laws if the victim is a minor).

3) Evidence: what to collect and how to preserve it

Capture everything early, then preserve originals.

Screenshots: full-page with visible URL, date/time, and account handle. Include replies, captions, hashtags, metadata displays if available.
Links/URLs and permalinks to posts, profiles, groups, stories, reels, drive folders, etc.
Network logs/headers if you can export them; download copies of the images/videos in their original resolution.
Device preservation: keep the phone/computer used (don’t factory-reset).
Witness statements: people who saw the content online or received it privately.
Notarized Affidavit of the Complainant and Annexes (see templates in §13).
Hash values (MD5/SHA) of files when feasible—helps prove integrity.
Platform correspondence: tickets, emails confirming takedowns or account ownership.
Authentication under the Rules on Electronic Evidence (electronic documents and printouts are admissible if properly identified; ephemeral communications may be proven by testimony or other competent evidence).

Tip: Keep a chain-of-custody log—who handled the device/data and when. If you need help, the NBI Cybercrime Division or PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG) can assist with digital forensics.

4) Where to file and who investigates?

You have parallel options:

Criminal complaint with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor (Department of Justice).
- Start the preliminary investigation by filing your Affidavit-Complaint with annexes.
Law-enforcement report to:
- NBI – Cybercrime Division (NBI-CCD), or
- PNP – Anti-Cybercrime Group (PNP-ACG) (and relevant regional offices). They can investigate, secure evidence, and coordinate with platforms/ISPs. They may also conduct inquest if there’s a warrantless arrest.

You may do both (report to NBI/PNP and file with the Prosecutor). Barangay conciliation does not apply here (penalties exceed one year and these cases are excluded).

5) Jurisdiction, venue, and special courts

Courts: Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) have exclusive jurisdiction over RA 10175 violations and are designated as cybercrime courts. RA 9995 cases also go to the RTC where proper.
Venue (libel): generally where the offended party resides at the time of the offense or where the publication occurred. For online posts, publication can be established where the content was accessed/seen, but venue rules can be technical—your prosecutor will assess.
Extraterritoriality (RA 10175): Philippine courts may take jurisdiction when any element of the offense, or any computer system used, is in the Philippines, or when the offender is a Filipino. Cross-border evidence will typically require cybercrime warrants and international cooperation.

6) Step-by-step: Filing a criminal case

Immediate safety & takedown
- Use platform reporting tools (e.g., “intimate image without consent” or “defamation”).
- Preserve evidence before it disappears.
- For urgent harm, your lawyer can seek a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)/Preliminary Injunction from the RTC to compel removal/disable access.
Prepare your Affidavit-Complaint
- Identify the offense(s): RA 9995 and/or Cyber Libel (RA 10175 + RPC).
- Set out facts in chronological order with URLs, handles, dates.
- Attach Annexes: screenshots, links, file copies, platform emails, witness affidavits.
- Include a prayer for protective measures (privacy, in-camera proceedings, sealing of records, use of initials/pseudonym—especially for NCII and minors).
File with the Prosecutor
- Bring IDs and copies (usually two or more sets). Pay the filing fee if assessed.
- The prosecutor issues subpoena to the respondent(s) for counter-affidavit.
- Reply/Rejoinder may follow; then the case is submitted for resolution.
Resolution → Information
- If probable cause is found, the Information is filed in the RTC. A warrant of arrest may issue (or the accused may post bail).
Trial
- Prosecution presents witnesses, digital evidence (with authenticator/forensic examiner).
- Defense presents evidence (including defenses below).
- Judgment: penalties and damages; court can order destruction/forfeiture of illegal copies and permanent injunction against further sharing.

7) Law-enforcement tools: Cybercrime warrants & digital searches

Investigators and prosecutors can seek court-issued Cybercrime Warrants (under the Supreme Court Rules on Cybercrime Warrants) such as:

Warrant to Disclose Computer Data (WDCD) — to compel providers to disclose subscriber info, traffic data, or content data.
Warrant to Intercept Computer Data (WICD) — to capture/collect traffic or content data in real time.
Warrant to Search, Seize, and Examine Computer Data (WSSECD) — for onsite seizure/imaging and forensic examination.

These require probable cause and judicial authorization. They are the lawful basis for getting subscriber details, logs, and content from platforms or ISPs if voluntary cooperation is insufficient.

Note: The DOJ “takedown” power once found in RA 10175 was struck down by the Supreme Court. Content blocking now generally requires a court order (TRO/injunction or final judgment), or platform-initiated removal under their policies.

8) Civil and administrative remedies (in addition to criminal)

Independent civil action for damages (moral, exemplary, temperate; actual damages if proven).
Injunctions: TRO/Preliminary Injunction to stop further sharing and compel removal.
Destruction/forfeiture: of seized devices/copies containing illicit images.
Data Privacy complaints: If a personal information controller/processor mishandled your data (e.g., workplace leak), consider a complaint before the National Privacy Commission.
Safe Spaces Act: For online sexual harassment, administrative and civil avenues may exist alongside criminal liability.
If the victim is a minor: RA 9775 (Anti-Child Pornography) and RA 11930 (OSAEC/CSAEM) provide stronger penalties and specialized procedures; report immediately to PNP-WCPC, NBI-CCD, and DSWD.

9) Defenses commonly raised (and how they are evaluated)

For RA 9995 (NCII)

Consent: The accused must show clear consent to the specific act (recording and sharing). “We filmed it” is not consent to upload.
Public setting: The law targets sexual acts/private areas; context matters.
News/public interest: Rarely applicable; courts weigh victim privacy heavily.
Mistaken identity: If the image doesn’t identify the victim, that undercuts the case—but blurring can still fail if other details reveal identity.

For Cyber Libel

Truth + good motives and justifiable ends: Truth alone is not always enough; it must be for a proper purpose.
Fair comment/qualified privilege: Opinion based on true facts on matters of public interest may be protected; actual malice defeats the privilege.
No identifiability or no publication: If the person isn’t identifiable, or no third party saw the post.
Good faith: Recognized in some contexts but fact-sensitive.
Prescription: Complaints filed beyond 1 year from publication may be dismissed (watch for republication/edited re-posts which can restart the clock).

10) Timing, deadlines, and prescription

Cyber libel: generally 1 year from first publication (upload/post). A substantive republication (e.g., re-posting with edits for a new audience) can start a new 1-year period; mere “sharing” or “liking” without creating a new defamatory post usually does not extend prescription. File early.
RA 9995 (special law): offenses under special laws follow Act No. 3326 on prescription; periods depend on the penalty imposed. Because RA 9995 carries multi-year imprisonment, the prescriptive period is much longer than 1 year. Still, act promptly—removal and evidence preservation are time-sensitive.

11) Practical playbook for victims

Document: Screenshot and download copies; note URLs, dates, usernames.
Preserve devices and keep originals intact.
Report to platforms using their NCII/“revenge porn”/defamation flows.
Consult counsel (especially for injunctions and privacy measures).
File with Prosecutor; and/or report to NBI-CCD/PNP-ACG for investigation.
Ask for protective orders (seal records, initials, in-camera testimony).
Consider civil action for damages and injunctions in parallel.
For minors: alert PNP-WCPC/NBI-CCD/DSWD immediately; request emergency measures.
Safety planning: If the offender is an intimate partner, consider VAWC remedies (temporary/protection orders) and relocation/digital security steps.

12) What outcomes to expect

Criminal conviction: imprisonment, fines, and permanent injunction against further sharing; forfeiture/destruction of illicit copies/devices.
Civil damages: moral and exemplary damages are common in NCII/libel cases.
Platform enforcement: account suspension, takedown, content hashing to prevent re-uploads.
Restorative terms (if negotiated): written apology, verified deletion/forensic wiping, undertaking not to contact, and liquidated damages for breach.

13) Useful templates (you can adapt these)

A. Affidavit-Complaint (skeleton)

AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT I, [Name], Filipino, of legal age, residing at [address], after having been duly sworn, depose:

Parties. I am the complainant; respondent is [Name/handle/“John Doe”].

Jurisdiction/Venue. I reside in [City/Province]; the unlawful publication and/or sharing occurred and was accessed here; the RTC/Prosecutor has jurisdiction under RA 9995 / RA 10175 and the RPC.

Facts. a. On [date], respondent [took/shared] my [photo/video] depicting [sexual act/private areas] without my consent; URL: [link]; screenshots Annexes “A-A-n”. b. The content was viewed/shared by others (see Annex “B” witness affidavits). c. For cyber libel (if applicable): respondent posted [defamatory statements] identifying me (Annex “C”).

Harm. I suffered [embarrassment, mental anguish, reputational harm, lost opportunities] (medical/psychological records if any, Annex “D”).

Offenses. Respondent violated RA 9995 and/or RA 10175 (cyber libel under RPC Art. 355, penalty elevated by RA 10175).

Prayer. Find probable cause and file Informations; issue necessary subpoenas and cybercrime warrants; order protective measures (sealing, initials, in-camera); and grant other reliefs. Annexes: screenshots, links, file copies (hash values), witness affidavits, platform takedown emails. Verification & Certification against Forum Shopping (Signature & Jurat/Notarial block)

B. Preservation/Takedown Letter to Platforms (sample)

Subject: Urgent – Non-Consensual Intimate Image / Defamation I am [Name]. The URL(s) [paste links] contain non-consensual intimate imagery in violation of your policies and Philippine RA 9995, and/or defamatory content constituting cyber libel under RA 10175. Please preserve all subscriber information, IP logs, upload logs, and content pending legal process, and remove/disable the content promptly under your policies. I can be reached at [email/phone]. (Attach ID, screenshots, and any police/prosecutor reference numbers.)

14) Special scenarios

Unknown offender (“John Doe”): You can still file a complaint with NBI/PNP; they can seek court-issued cybercrime warrants to identify the uploader via platform/ISP records.
Multiple re-uploads: Each fresh uploader can be pursued; combine with an injunction to stop re-circulation.
Deepfakes: RA 9995 can still apply if the output depicts your private areas/sexual act and is tied to your identity without consent. Cyber libel may also apply if defamatory.
Workplace/school leaks: Layer RA 9995 (if intimate) with Data Privacy Act complaints against the entity that failed to protect or unlawfully processed your personal data.
Intimate partners: Consider RA 9262 (VAWC) for protection orders and additional penalties, especially where abuse, coercion, or threats are involved.
Minors: Immediately flag under RA 9775 and RA 11930 (OSAEC/CSAEM). Possession, sharing, or production of any sexualized image of a child is a serious offense with specialized procedures.

15) Penalties and remedies (at a glance)

RA 9995: Imprisonment (multi-year) + fines; privacy protections; civil damages; orders to remove/destroy illicit copies.
Cyber libel (RA 10175 + RPC): Penalty one degree higher than ordinary libel; fines may also be imposed; civil damages available.
Injunctions: TRO/preliminary injunction to compel takedown and stop further dissemination (court-ordered; platforms often comply rapidly once served).
Costs/fees: Filing fees for civil actions; criminal complaints with the prosecutor generally have minimal fees; expert/forensic and notarial fees are case-by-case.

16) Common pitfalls to avoid

Missing the 1-year window for libel. File early.
Poor evidence capture (no URLs/time stamps, low-res screenshots, altered images).
Deleting the original device/data—keep originals for forensic validation.
Publicly naming the victim (especially in NCII); this can create separate liability.
Relying only on platform reports: Use them, but pursue formal legal remedies concurrently.

17) Quick checklist (printable)

Screenshots (with URL, date/time, handle)
Original files downloaded; hash computed
Device preserved; no resets/edits
Witness affidavits (who saw/received)
Platform reports filed; ticket numbers saved
Affidavit-Complaint drafted; annexes labeled
Filed with Prosecutor; NBI/PNP report initiated
Protective measures requested (sealing, initials, in-camera)
Civil damages & injunction considered
For minors: WCPC/NBI-CCD/DSWD notified

Final word

You can hold offenders accountable for non-consensual intimate imagery and online defamation in the Philippines. The keys are fast evidence preservation, correct venue, clear affidavits, and (where needed) court-ordered takedowns backed by cybercrime warrants. If you want, tell me your city and I’ll draft a customized Affidavit-Complaint and a platform preservation letter tailored to your facts.