How to Prepare a Counter-Affidavit in a Cyber Libel Case in the Philippines

This is an educational guide—not legal advice. Cyber libel is a criminal charge; consider consulting counsel.

1) The legal frame (what you’re responding to)

Cyber libel is libel committed through a computer system (e.g., Facebook, X/Twitter, YouTube, blogs, forums, group chats). It is punished under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (R.A. 10175), which largely borrows the definition of libel from the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Core elements of libel (RPC) you will see alleged in the complaint:
1. Defamatory imputation (a statement that tends to dishonor, discredit, or put the person in contempt),
2. Publication (communicated to at least one third person),
3. Identification (of and concerning the complainant),
4. Malice (presumed in libel; for qualifiedly privileged communications, the complainant must prove actual malice).
Common defenses (you’ll develop these in your counter-affidavit):
- Truth + good motives/justifiable ends (truth alone is not enough; show why publication was justified).
- Qualified privilege (fair and true report of official proceedings; fair comment on matters of public interest; communications in the performance of a duty/interest).
- No publication (e.g., message sent only to the complainant; or post never left draft stage).
- Not of and concerning the complainant (no sufficient identification).
- Lack of malice / good faith (context, intent, corrective actions).
- Absence of probable cause (facts, law, venue, prescription).
Venue (special to libel) is generally governed by Article 360, RPC:
- If the complainant is a private individual: usually where the offended party resided at the time of commission, or where the article was printed and first published (for online posts, prosecutors typically use the offended party’s residence or the respondent’s place where elements occurred).
- If the complainant is a public officer: where they hold office at the time of the offense (or printed/first published, if applicable).
Prescription: Libel under the RPC prescribes in one (1) year from publication (Art. 90). Cyber libel is often treated the same, but some have argued different periods under special law rules. Raise prescription if the complaint was filed late.

2) Where the counter-affidavit fits in the process

Preliminary Investigation (Rule 112, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure):

Subpoena from the prosecutor (with a copy of the complaint-affidavit and annexes) is served on you.
You generally have 10 days from receipt to file your counter-affidavit and supporting evidence, and to serve a copy on the complainant. (Extensions may be granted for good cause.)
The complainant may file a reply-affidavit; rejoinders are at the prosecutor’s discretion.
The prosecutor may call a clarificatory conference (no cross-examination).
The prosecutor issues a Resolution (dismiss or file an Information).
If adverse, you may file a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review with the Department of Justice (usually within 15 days of receipt of the resolution).
If an Information is filed in court, bail and arraignment follow.

Important: You have the right to remain silent and not submit a counter-affidavit; the case will then proceed ex parte on the prosecution’s papers. In most cases, however, a well-prepared counter-affidavit helps defeat or narrow the charge.

3) What to include (structure & substance)

A. Formal parts (format)

Caption: Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor, city/province; “People of the Philippines v. [Your Name]”; I.S. No. (investigation slip/docket number).
Title: “COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT”.
Affiant’s personal circumstances: name, age, nationality, address, occupation, contact details.
Introductory averments: date of subpoena receipt; due service; counsel (if any).
Factual narrative: clear timeline, context, screenshots/exhibits references.
Point-by-point refutation of the complaint’s paragraphs.
Legal defenses (organized by issues).
Prayer (dismissal for lack of probable cause).
Annexes (labeled and paginated).
Verification/Jurat: “Subscribed and sworn to before me…” (usually before the investigating prosecutor or any authorized officer).

B. Substantive parts (what to argue)

No defamatory imputation
- Explain the meaning and context of the words; use ordinary reader perspective.
- Show they’re opinion, satire, hyperbole, or fair comment on public matters.
No publication
- If the material was not communicated to a third person, there is no publication (e.g., message only to complainant).
- If the complainant attached screenshots without URLs/headers or with alterations, challenge authenticity and completeness.
No identification (not “of and concerning”)
- The post does not point to the complainant, or identification is speculative.
Truth + good motives / justifiable ends
- Attach supporting records (e.g., case files, certifications, public documents).
- Explain public interest served and responsible steps taken (seeking comment, relying on official records).
Qualified privilege / fair comment
- If you fairly reported a public proceeding or commented on a public figure or public issue, discuss the privilege and why actual malice is absent.
Lack of malice / good faith
- State your intent, steps to verify, prompt corrections or takedowns, and the absence of ill will.
Jurisdiction/venue defects
- If filed in the wrong city/province under Article 360 rules, say so.
Prescription
- Point out dates of first online publication (or republication, if any) versus filing date.
No probable cause overall
- Argue that, even assuming the complaint’s evidence, it does not meet the elements of cyber libel; prosecutors should not file an Information.

4) Evidence: what to attach and how

Digital evidence is governed by the Rules on Electronic Evidence. Aim for authenticity, integrity, and relevance:

Screenshots/printouts of the allegedly libelous post(s) with URL bar, date/time, username/handle, permalink, and context (thread view).
Metadata where practicable (platform export like Facebook “Download Your Information”; device logs).
Affidavits of witnesses (who saw the post, can explain context, or can attest to parody/satire).
System records (email headers, server logs, login history) for non-authorship defenses (e.g., account compromise).
Truth documents (certifications, court records, public documents).
Hash and storage medium: Save files to a USB/DVD and note checksums (e.g., SHA-256) in your Evidence Index.
Chain of custody description for key files.
Translations (if any part is in another language), with the translator’s affidavit.

Tip: Number your annexes (Annex “1”, “2”…), tab them, and cross-refer in the text (“…see Annex ‘4’, p. 2”).

5) Filing & service

Deadline: Generally 10 days from receipt of subpoena. Request extension in writing (before lapse) if needed, explaining good cause (e.g., voluminous electronic records, illness, counsel’s conflict).
Where/how to file: Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor indicated in the subpoena. Many offices accept physical filing; some allow e-mail/e-filing—follow the subpoena’s instructions.
Copies: Prepare at least: (1) original for the prosecutor, (2) a copy for each complainant, and (3) your file copy.
Proof of service: Personally serve or courier a copy to the complainant/counsel and attach proof (registry receipt, courier tracking, or signed acknowledgment).

6) Practical strategies that often decide cases

Stick to elements: Every major paragraph should tie to defamation/publication/identification/malice.
Lead with documents: Bare denials rarely carry the day; attach contemporaneous records.
Context wins: Embed the whole thread or video transcript—not just isolated lines.
Don’t over-explain: Avoid needlessly repeating or re-publishing charged content; quote only as needed.
Preserve evidence: Do not delete posts or devices; preservation shows good faith and avoids spoliation arguments.
Mind your tone: Respectful language can matter; prosecutors are gatekeepers of probable cause, not triers of guilt.
Consider parallel steps: If warranted, file counter-charges (e.g., perjury, unlawful means), or send a demand to preserve evidence. Be strategic—avoid actions that look retaliatory.

7) After the prosecutor’s resolution

If dismissed: Ask for a certified copy of the Resolution; keep all e-mails and proofs of service.
If for filing: Explore MR (motion for reconsideration) or DOJ petition for review. If the case reaches court, be ready with bail, arraignment strategies, and Rule on Electronic Evidence objections/motions in limine.

8) Common pitfalls to avoid

Late filing or no proof of service.
Unsworn or unsigned affidavits, or annexes not properly marked.
Screenshots without URLs/timestamps, or obviously cropped/altered images.
Forgetting venue/prescription defenses.
Arguing only opinion without showing public interest or the basis for the opinion.
Admitting authorship when disputing it—be precise in language.

9) Annotated template (you can copy-paste and adapt)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF __________

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,                 I.S. No. _____________
    Complainant,
                                            For: CYBER LIBEL
        - versus -

[RESPONDENT NAME],
    Respondent.
------------------------------------------x

                    COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

I, [Full Name], Filipino, of legal age, [civil status], with address at [address], after having been duly sworn, state:

1. PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND DUE PROCESS
   1.1 I received the Subpoena dated [date] on [date of receipt]. I am filing this Counter-Affidavit within the period allowed.
   1.2 Copies are furnished to the Complainant/counsel together with the annexes.

2. BACKGROUND FACTS
   2.1 On [date], an account named “[handle]” allegedly posted [describe]. (Annex “1”: screenshot with URL and timestamp)
   2.2 [Provide concise, chronological narrative with citations to annexes.]

3. SPECIFIC RESPONSES
   3.1 Paragraph __ of the Complaint falsely alleges [summary]. In truth, [facts]. (Annex “2”)
   3.2 [Repeat as needed; keep each response tied to an annex.]

4. ARGUMENTS
   A. No Defamatory Imputation
      The statements were fair comment/opinion on a matter of public interest, supported by records (Annexes “3–5”).
   B. No Publication
      The message was a private exchange between me and the Complainant; no third person received it. (Annex “6”)
   C. Not “Of and Concerning” Complainant
      The post does not identify the Complainant; readers would not reasonably conclude it refers to him/her. (Annex “7”)
   D. Truth + Good Motives/Justifiable Ends
      The facts reported are true and drawn from official records; publication served the public interest. (Annexes “8–10”)
   E. Lack of Malice / Good Faith
      I relied on public documents, sought verification, and issued prompt corrections. (Annex “11”)
   F. Improper Venue / Lack of Jurisdiction
      The complaint was filed in [city], but under Article 360 the proper venue is [explain].
   G. Prescription
      The material was first published on [date]; the complaint was filed on [date], beyond the prescriptive period.

   For these reasons, there is no probable cause for cyber libel.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, I respectfully pray that the Complaint be DISMISSED for lack of probable cause.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

[City], Philippines, [date].

                                    [Signature over printed name]
                                    Respondent

VERIFICATION AND JURAT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this [date] in [city], affiant exhibiting [government ID, No., date/place of issue].

                                    [Name and designation of administering officer]

Annexing & Indexing tip: Attach an Evidence Index table listing: Annex number, file name, description, date/time captured, hash (if any), and source (URL/permalink).

10) Quick checklist (print this)

Subpoena received on: ________ ; 10-day deadline: ________ (mark calendar).
Drafted point-by-point responses tied to annexes.
Raised venue and prescription if applicable.
Attached complete digital evidence (with URLs/timestamps) + witness affidavits.
Labeled Annexes and prepared Evidence Index.
Subscribed and sworn before the proper officer.
Filed with prosecutor and served on complainant (keep proofs).
Prepared for possible reply-affidavit and clarificatory meeting.
Calendar 15-day period for MR/DOJ review if adverse.

Final notes

Cyber libel law borrows heavily from traditional libel rules but applies them to digital platforms.
Your goal at preliminary investigation is to block the filing of an Information by showing no probable cause—through tight, well-evidenced arguments focused on the elements.
When in doubt about deadlines, venue, or privileged communications, err on the side of filing on time and preserving evidence, and seek tailored legal advice.