“Reporting a Defamatory Facebook Post in the Philippines”

A comprehensive legal guide as of 16 July 2025

1. Overview

Social-media defamation in the Philippines sits at the intersection of:

Pillar	Key sources	Why it matters
Criminal law	Revised Penal Code (RPC) Arts. 353-362 (Traditional libel) · Cybercrime Prevention Act 2012 (RA 10175) §4(c)(4), §6 (Cyber-libel) · RA 10951 (2017 penalty adjustments)	Determines whether posting is a crime, the elements, venue, period to sue, and penalties (now harsher online).
Civil remedies	Civil Code Arts. 19-21 & 26 (abuse of rights / privacy) · Art. 33 (independent civil action for defamation)	Lets the victim recover moral, exemplary, and sometimes actual damages even if the accused is acquitted criminally.
Constitution & jurisprudence	Art. III §4 (free speech) balanced by “abuse of rights” · SC cases: Disini (2014), Tulfo (2021), Borjal (1995), Guingguing (2005)	Clarifies “actual malice”, public-figure doctrine, and the validity of cyber-libel.
Procedural & evidentiary rules	2019 Rule on Cybercrime Warrants (A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC) · Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC)	Cover preservation, authenticity, chain-of-custody, warrants for Facebook data.
Platform policy & takedown	Facebook Community Standards (Defamation) & Law-Enforcement Guidelines	Practical non-judicial removal route and evidence-retention channel.
Enforcement bodies	DOJ-Office of Cybercrime (OOC) · NBI Cybercrime Division · PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG) · CICC	Accept complaints, request data from Meta, execute warrants.

2. What counts as defamatory content online?

Under Art. 353 RPC, libel is:

Defamatory imputation – any discredit to another’s reputation;
Publication – communicated to a third person (posting on Facebook satisfies this);
Identifiability – victim is identifiable even if not named;
Malice – presumed in every defamatory imputation unless privileged; truth alone is insufficient without “good motives & justifiable ends.”

Cyber-libel (RA 10175 §4(c)(4)) is simply libel “committed through a computer system.” Section 6 increases the penalty by one degree (from prisión correccional min-med to prisión correccional max - prisión mayor min; 4 years, 2 months & 1 day – 8 years). Bail remains discretionary but usually granted.

3. Relevant Supreme Court guidance

Case	G.R. No. / Date	Take-away
Disini v. SOJ	203335 & 8 others, 18 Feb 2014	Upheld cyber-libel’s constitutionality but struck down aiding/abetting liability unless user has required malice.
Tulfo v. People	235366, 8 March 2021	Reiterated actual malice standard for public figures; upheld conviction where reckless disregard for truth shown.
Bonifacio v. RTC Manila	184800, 29 Apr 2019	Venue for cyber-libel may be where the offended party actually accessed the post.
Borjal; Guingguing	1995, 2005	Defined public figure and extended qualified privilege to fair commentaries on public interest.

4. Time bars & venue

Prescription: 1 year for traditional libel (Art. 90 RPC). For cyber-libel, SC (2021 Tulfo dicta) treats §6 penalty upgrade as not extending prescription; many prosecutors, however, use 15 years under RA 3326. File within 1 year to be safe.
Venue:
- Traditional libel – RTC/MeTC where article was printed/first published or where offended party resided.
- Cyber-libel – any RTC with cybercrime jurisdiction where the online post was first accessed by the victim or where they reside (Bonifacio rule).

5. Step-by-step practical roadmap

A. Immediate platform action

Internal FB report – Click ••• > Find support or report > Defamation. Meta may geo-block or remove after review.
Send a demand / Cease-and-Desist via Messenger or e-mail; screenshot proof-of-delivery.

B. Preserve evidence (crucial)

Task	Details
Screenshots & screen-record	Include URL, date/time in system tray, full comment threads.
Metadata capture	Right-click timestamp → Copy link; keep the numeric post ID and user profile URL.
Notarization	Execute a Narrative Affidavit of Capture; have the notary view the device while screenshots are taken (best practice).
Request preservation from Meta	Through counsel, send a Law Enforcement Preservation Letter (LEPL) within 90 days of discovery; Meta holds data 90 days extendable once.

C. Decide the legal track

Track	Where to file	Usual timeline	Highlights
Criminal cyber-libel	Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor → DOJ	PI: 60-90 days; Court trial: 2-5 years	Secures subpoena for FB data; possible arrest warrant; penalty includes imprisonment & fine.
Civil action (Art. 33)	RTC (ordinary damages) or MeTC (≤ P300k)	1-3 years	Independent; preponderance of evidence only; attach mental anguish receipts.
Protection order / anti-VAWC	For intimate partner posts	Barangay → RTC; 24-48 hrs issuance	Orders takedown & no-contact; imprisonment if violated.
Administrative / PRC / PRB	If the defamer is a licensed professional	3-6 months	Suspension/revocation of license.

D. Evidentiary tools during investigation

Warrant to Disclose Computer Data (WCD) – subscriber info, logs.
Warrant to Intercept Computer Data (WICD) – live access (rare).
Warrant to Examine Computer Data (WECD) – imaging of devices.
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) – DOJ-OOC channels request to Meta’s US office if data older than LEPL window.

6. Defenses available to the poster

Truth + Good Motives / Justifiable Ends (Art. 361).
Qualified privilege – fair & true report of official proceedings, fair comment on matters of public interest.
Absolute privilege – legislative/judicial pleadings.
Lack of malice – especially for private individuals; burden shifts back to complainant once malice in law is rebutted.
Consent or waiver – complainant re-shared or consented to publication.

7. Penalties & collateral consequences

Violation	Imprisonment	Fine	Ancillary
Traditional libel (Art. 355, RA 10951)	Prisión correccional min-med (6 mos 1 day – 4 yrs 2 mos)	₱40 000 – ₱1 200 000	Subsidiary imprisonment if fine unpaid.
Cyber-libel (§6 RA 10175)	One degree higher → Prisión correccional max – Prisión mayor min (4 yrs 2 mos 1 day – 8 yrs)	Up to ₱1 600 000	May affect visas, professional licenses, firearms permits.
Civil damages	—	Actual, moral, exemplary (amount proven)	May be enforced against salaries, real property.

8. Strategic considerations for complainants

Weigh jail vs. damages: Many opt for demand-letter + civil suit to avoid perceived harshness of criminal libel.
Public-figure hurdle: If you are a public official or celebrity, prepare for the actual malice burden—gather proof of recklessness.
Anti-SLAPP optics: Filing cyber-libel can trigger backlash; balance reputational benefit vs. “chilling-effect” criticism.
Settlement leverage: Prosecutors often endorse mediation under DOJ Circular 61-2020; agree on public apology + deletion + nominal damages.
Cross-border defendants: Expect delays—serve via Facebook Business Records Affidavit and MLAT; consider civil suit where assets exist.

9. Best practices to prevent liability when posting

Fact-check before sharing.
Add verifiable sources and words like “allegedly” where uncertainty exists.
Avoid blanket statements; opinion must be clearly opinion (“I think…”).
Refrain from reposting unverified rumors, as republication is fresh libel.
Use platform tools (audience selector, restricted lists) to limit exposure.

10. Key take-aways

A Facebook post can spawn simultaneous criminal and civil actions—the former now carries up to eight years’ imprisonment post-RA 10175/10951.
One-year filing window remains the safest benchmark until the Supreme Court definitively rules on cyber-libel prescription.
Preserving digital evidence immediately is critical; courts reject screenshots without proper authentication.
Filing with NBI Cybercrime Division or PNP-ACG speeds issuance of cyber-warrants and requests to Meta.
Truth is not enough—must be published with good motives and for justifiable ends, else malice may still attach.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and jurisprudence evolve; consult a qualified Philippine lawyer for advice on specific facts.