I. Introduction

The Philippines’ Republic Act No. 10175, otherwise known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, remains the primary legislation governing online criminality. While the law is often associated with cyberlibel, its most powerful and frequently invoked provision against online death threats, grave threats, and systematic online bullying (commonly called cyberbullying) is Section 6, which adopts all crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and special laws when committed by, through, or with the use of information and communication technology (ICT), and imposes a penalty one degree higher than that prescribed by the existing law.

The Supreme Court in Disini v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335, February 11, 2014, with clarifications in 2015) upheld the constitutionality of Section 6 in its entirety, making it the unbreakable backbone for prosecuting online threats and harassment that do not necessarily constitute libel.

II. Applicable Criminal Provisions

A. Grave Threats (Article 282, Revised Penal Code) via Section 6, RA 10175

The most common charge for online death threats is Grave Threats under Art. 282 RPC:

Paragraph 1: Threat to kill or inflict serious physical injury without condition — prision correccional (6 months and 1 day to 6 years)
Paragraph 2: Threat to commit a crime against person or property subject to a condition — arresto mayor (1 month and 1 day to 6 months)

When committed through a computer system (Facebook, Twitter/X, Instagram, TikTok, Messenger, SMS, etc.), Section 6 RA 10175 elevates the penalty by one degree:

Paragraph 1 becomes prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years)
Paragraph 2 becomes prision correccional (6 months and 1 day to 6 years)

Elements that must be proven beyond reasonable doubt:

That the offender threatened another person with the infliction upon the latter’s person, honor or property, or upon his family, of any wrong amounting to a crime.
That the threat was made with the specific intent to cause alarm, fear, or disturbance.
That the threat is direct, unconditional (for par. 1), and immediate or imminent in character.
That the threat was made through the use of ICT.

Leading cases have consistently held that posting “Patay ka sa akin,” “I will find you and kill you,” “Barilin kita diyan,” or similar statements publicly or in private messages constitutes grave threats when the victim reasonably perceives it as serious. The Supreme Court in Soriano v. People (G.R. No. 223905, June 27, 2018) and subsequent cases has ruled that the accessibility of the post/message and the context (e.g., doxxing, prior animosity) determine whether the threat is “real” or mere hyperbole.

B. Light Threats (Article 283, Revised Penal Code) via Section 6

Threats that do not amount to a crime (e.g., “I will slap you,” “I will shame you forever,” “I will ruin your life”) fall under Light Threats — arresto menor (1 to 30 days). With Section 6 enhancement: arresto mayor (1 month and 1 day to 6 months).

C. Other Light Threats / Blackmail (Article 284, RPC)

Threats to publish defamatory information or expose secrets to obtain money or other benefit.

D. Unjust Vexation (Article 287, RPC) via Section 6

Repeated harassing posts, memes, tagging, or messaging intended to annoy or irritate constitute unjust vexation (arresto menor or fine). With enhancement: arresto mayor. This is the most common “catch-all” charge for sustained cyberbullying campaigns that do not reach the level of libel or grave threats.

E. Cyberlibel (Section 4(c)(4), RA 10175)

When the online bullying involves imputation of a crime, vice, or defect (real or imaginary) that exposes the victim to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule. Penalty: prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period (4 years, 2 months, 1 day to 8 years) plus fine.

Important Disini ruling: Only the original author of the defamatory statement is liable for cyberlibel. Those who like, share, or comment are NOT criminally liable for libel (although they may be liable for separate threats or unjust vexation in their own comments).

F. Gender-Based Online Sexual Harassment under RA 11313 (Safe Spaces Act, 2019)

Section 11 expressly covers online acts such as:

Persistent unwanted sexual messages or advances
Posting or threatening to post sexual photos/videos
Catcalling, wolf-whistling, or misogynistic slurs online
Stalking via social media

Penalty: arresto mayor (1 month and 1 day to 6 months) for first offense; prision correccional (6 months and 1 day to 6 years) for second and subsequent offenses. This law is gender-neutral in application but is most often used against men harassing women online.

G. Grave Scandal, Alarms and Scandals, or Slight Illegal Detention (in extreme cases of sustained harassment)

III. Jurisdiction and Procedure

Venue: The complaint may be filed with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor where the victim resides or where the offense was committed (i.e., where the post was uploaded or where the victim accessed it). The Supreme Court in ABS-CBN v. Gozon (2014) and subsequent jurisprudence has adopted the “place of access” rule for cybercrimes.
Investigating agencies:
- PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (PNP-ACG)
- National Bureau of Investigation Cybercrime Division (NBI-CCD)
- Department of Justice – Office of Cybercrime (DOJ-OOC)
Evidence required:
- Screenshots with visible timestamps and URLs
- Notarized affidavit of the complainant
- Original device if possible (for forensic extraction)
- Witness statements
- Certificate of registration of SIM card (under RA 11934, SIM Card Registration Act) greatly aids in identifying anonymous accounts
Inquest or preliminary investigation: For threats, inquest is possible if the suspect is arrested; otherwise, regular preliminary investigation (10–30 days).
Trial court: Regional Trial Court (cybercrime cases are cognizable by RTC regardless of penalty under A.M. No. 02-11-11-SC as clarified).
Civil liability: The victim may claim moral damages (commonly awarded P50,000–P300,000 for threats and cyberbullying), exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees in the same criminal case.

IV. Prescription Periods (as amended by Act No. 10951, 2017)

Grave threats via cybercrime: 15 years (prision mayor)
Cyberlibel: 12 years (after Disini and Act No. 10951)
Light threats/unjust vexation via cybercrime: 6 months to 2 years depending on enhanced penalty

V. Defenses Commonly Raised (and Usually Rejected)

“It was just a joke” – Context is king; courts look at the entire thread and history between parties.
“The account was hacked” – Accused must prove hacking with technical evidence.
“Freedom of expression” – Threats and harassment are not protected speech (Disini explicitly stated this).
“No intent to carry out” – Intent to cause fear is sufficient; actual capacity or intent to execute is not required.

VI. Practical Remedies Beyond Criminal Action

File a complaint with the platform (Facebook, TikTok, etc.) for removal under community standards.
Apply for Protection Order under RA 9262 (if victim is woman/child) or RA 8369 (Family Courts Act).
File civil action for damages and injunction under Rule 58, Rules of Court (though takedown clause in RA 10175 was struck down, courts may still issue preservation orders).
Under RA 11934 (SIM Registration Law), anonymous threats have become significantly harder to execute without traceability.

VII. Conclusion

Online death threats and sustained cyberbullying are not mere “internet drama.” They are serious crimes punishable by years of imprisonment under the combined application of the Revised Penal Code and the Cybercrime Prevention Act. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the Constitution does not shield those who weaponize social media to terrorize others. Victims are strongly encouraged to document everything, report immediately to the PNP-ACG or NBI, and pursue both criminal and civil remedies. The law provides more than adequate tools for justice; what is often lacking is the victim’s courage to come forward.