Legal Action Against Someone Creating a Fake Facebook Account Using Your Name and Photo (Philippine Legal Context, updated to August 2025)

1 | Why the Issue Matters

Online impersonation erodes personal reputation, distorts public discourse, and can be leveraged for fraud, harassment, or political manipulation. Philippine law treats it seriously, offering criminal, civil, and administrative pathways to obtain redress or punishment.

2 | Core Statutes and Rules

Instrument	Key Provision(s)	Relevance to Fake Accounts
Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012)	§ 4(b)(3) Computer-Related Identity Theft – “unauthorized acquisition, use, misuse, transfer, possession, alteration or deletion of identifying information belonging to another” § 4(c)(4) Cyber-libel	Primary criminal hook. Identity theft stands even if no monetary loss occurs; libel applies if defamatory content is posted.
Revised Penal Code (RPC)	Art. 178 Using Fictitious Name; Art. 315 Estafa; Art. 353-355 Libel (as modified by RA 10175)	Alternative or concurrent charges when the fake account deceives or defames.
RA 10173 (Data Privacy Act of 2012)	§§ 11-14 (General Data Privacy Principles & Lawful Processing)	Unauthorized processing of a real person’s personal data (photo, name) without consent may trigger civil/administrative liability and fines.
Civil Code of the Philippines	Art. 19-21 (abuse of rights), Art. 26 (right to privacy), Art. 32 (independent civil action for violations of constitutional rights)	Basis for damages suits even if no criminal case prospers.
Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC)	Rules 2-5, Rule 11	Governs authentication and admissibility of screenshots, metadata, log files.
Intellectual Property Code (RA 8293)	§§ 171-174 (copyright in photographs)	Reproducing or altering someone’s photo without consent can be copyright infringement.
Administrative Issuances	NPC Circular 16-01 (complaints handling), DOJ Office of Cybercrime guidelines	Set procedural rules for privacy and cybercrime complaints.

Penalty snapshot (RA 10175 § 8): Computer-related identity theft is punished by prisión mayor (6 years + 1 day – 12 years) or a fine of ₱200 000 – ₱1 000 000, or both. If committed against a vulnerable victim (e.g., a minor) the penalty is one degree higher.

3 | Criminal Remedies

Identity Theft Charge (RA 10175 § 4(b)(3))
- Elements: (a) unauthorized acquisition/ use of another’s identifying information; (b) intent to gain, defraud, injure, or cause damage (financial or otherwise).
- Venue: Where any element occurred or where the offended party resides, per § 21 of RA 10175.
Cyber-libel (if fake page posts defamatory statements).
Estafa / Swindling (RPC Art. 315) when account is used to solicit money.
Usurpation-of-Name / Fictitious Name (RPC Art. 178) – a fallback when cyber provisions fail.

Procedure

Evidence preservation: Secure forensic screenshots, HTML source, profile URL, date/time stamps, and, where possible, Facebook’s “Account Data Download”.
Sworn Complaint-Affidavit before the NBI Cybercrime Division or PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG).
Inquest / Preliminary Investigation by the City/Provincial Prosecutor.
Cyber-warrants (Rule on Cybercrime Warrants, A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC) to compel Facebook to disclose logs/IP addresses.
Arraignment & Trial in a designated cybercrime court (usually an RTC branch).

4 | Civil Causes of Action

Basis	What You Must Show	Possible Relief
Art. 26 Civil Code – Privacy	Intrusion or misuse of name/photo without consent	Actual, moral, and exemplary damages; injunction to remove account.
Art. 19-21 – Abuse of Rights	Act contrary to morals, good customs or public policy	Damages plus attorney’s fees.
Art. 33 – Defamation	Cyber-libel or false statements	Separate damages action, independent of criminal case.
Data Privacy Act (RA 10173)	Unauthorized processing causing damage; malice not required	Nominal damages (up to ₱500 000) + actual/moral damages; NPC may impose fines.

Civil and criminal actions may proceed simultaneously but require careful coordination to avoid inconsistent rulings.

5 | Administrative & Non-Judicial Options

National Privacy Commission (NPC)
- File a verified complaint within one year of obtaining knowledge of the impersonation.
- NPC may issue Cease-&-Desist Orders and impose administrative fines.
Facebook’s Impersonation Policy
- Report through facebook.com/help.
- Platform typically removes or disables the fake profile within days, especially when government-issued ID is provided.
Barangay Protection Order (BPO) under the VAWC Act if the impersonation is part of domestic cyber-abuse (victim is woman or child).

6 | Evidentiary Challenges & Best Practices

Challenge	Mitigation
Volatile online content	Timestamped, notarized screenshots; use e-notarization platforms (Rule 9, REE).
Anonymous perpetrators	Subpoena to Facebook via DOJ Mutual Legal Assistance; request IP disclosure.
Deepfakes / altered images	Expert testimony, hash value comparison, metadata analysis.
Chain of custody	Use digital forensic examiners; log every handling step.

7 | Notable Jurisprudence

Case	G.R. No.	Holding
Disini v. Secretary of Justice (Feb 18 2014)	203335	Upheld constitutionality of § 4(b)(3) (identity theft) and extended RPC libel to cyberspace.
People v. Eulalio (CA, 2023)	CA-G.R. CR No. 44577	First CA conviction for cyber identity theft involving a fake Facebook profile used for estafa.
NPC Case No. 19-147 (2020)	—	NPC fined a corporation for allowing an employee to create fake profiles of co-workers; reaffirmed employer liability.

(Supreme Court has yet to squarely address all elements of § 4(b)(3); lower-court decisions fill the gap.)

8 | Defenses & Mitigating Factors

Parody / Satire – protected speech if a reasonable reader would not believe the profile is real.
Consent – express or implied permission from the name/photo owner.
Good-faith Mistake – may mitigate civil damages but rarely bars criminal liability once malice or intent to injure is shown.

9 | Step-by-Step Action Plan for Victims

Document Immediately – capture profile, posts, friend list.
Report to Facebook – request urgent takedown.
Secure an Affidavit of Complaint – narrate facts, attach evidence.
File with NBI-CCD or PNP-ACG – they can issue preservation requests to Facebook under Rule on Cybercrime Warrants.
Parallel Civil Suit (optional) – especially to freeze assets or recover damages.
Consider NPC Complaint – if personal data was processed sans consent.

10 | Emerging Issues (2025 Outlook)

Deepfake-specific legislation pending in Congress proposes heavier penalties when synthetic media is used for impersonation.
SIM Registration Act (RA 11934, 2022) now aids tracing of local perpetrators, though VPNs and foreign-registered numbers remain hurdles.
AI-generated profile images test applicability of § 4(b)(3); draft DOJ guidelines treat them as “identifying information” if they can lead to mistaken identity.

11 | Conclusion

Creating a fake Facebook account that mimics another person’s name and image is not a harmless prank under Philippine law. The offended party can pursue a multi-layered response:

criminal prosecution (RA 10175, RPC),
civil damages (Civil Code, Data Privacy Act),
administrative enforcement (NPC), and
swift platform takedowns.

A successful case hinges on rapid evidence preservation, clear articulation of harm, and strategic use of both domestic cybercrime procedures and Facebook’s own policies. As technology evolves—especially with AI-generated content—Philippine courts and lawmakers continue to refine the tools needed to protect identity and dignity online.

This article is for educational purposes and does not constitute specific legal advice. For personalized guidance, consult a Philippine cyber-crime or data-privacy lawyer.