Revenge Porn & Cyber-Libel Penalties in Philippine Law (2025 update) —A practitioner-oriented primer—
1. Overview
Digital sexual abuse (“revenge porn”) and cyber-libel are two of the most commonly litigated cyber-offences in the Philippines. While both ride on the reach and permanence of the internet, they are punished under distinct statutes, follow different elements, and involve separate policy debates. Below is an integrated guide that pulls together the applicable legislation, jurisprudence, procedure, and emerging reform proposals as of 17 June 2025. (This is general information only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.)
2. Governing Statutes
| Law | Year | Key Sections on the Topic | Maximum Imprisonment | Fine Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R.A. 9995 – Anti-Photo & Video Voyeurism Act | 2009 | §§ 3–5 | Prisión mayor (6 yrs 1 day – 12 yrs) | ₱100 000 – ₱500 000 |
| R.A. 10175 – Cybercrime Prevention Act | 2012 | § 4 (c)(4) (cyber-libel) + § 6 (penalty one degree higher) | Prisión mayor min–med (6 yrs 1 day – 10 yrs) | Up to ₱1 200 000* |
| R.A. 10951 – 2017 Code amendment | 2017 | Art. 355, RPC (libel fine read-justment) | (updates fines only) | ₱40 000 – ₱1 200 000 |
| R.A. 9262 – VAWC | 2004 | § 5 (i) (electronic harassment by intimate partner) | Prisión mayor | ₱100 000 – ₱300 000 |
| R.A. 11313 – Safe Spaces Act | 2019 | § 11 (online gender-based sexual harassment) | Arresto mayor to prisión correccional | ₱30 000 – ₱100 000 |
| R.A. 11930 – OSAEC & Anti-CSEM Act | 2022 | § 12 (non-consensual sexual images of minors) | Reclusion temporal to perpetua | Up to ₱5 000 000 |
*The basic libel fine under Art. 355 is now ₱40 000–₱1.2 million; cyber-libel fines track this range but are frequently imposed alongside imprisonment.
3. Revenge Porn (Photo & Video Voyeurism)
3.1 Elements (R.A. 9995 § 4)
- Capturing, copying or possessing images/video of a person’s private parts or sexual act without prior written consent, or
- Selling, copying, publishing, broadcasting or sharing such imagery, even if the recording itself was consented to.
3.2 Aggravating Circumstances
- Victim is a minor or the offender is a parent, guardian, teacher, or person in authority – penalty at maximum period.
- Commission via a computer system – prosecuted separately under R.A. 10175 § 7 but does not raise the penalty; Supreme Court treats R.A. 9995 as the special law on point.
3.3 Defences & Exempt Acts
- Lawful surveillance for criminal investigation.
- Medical or educational use when identity is concealed.
- Evidence in a judicial, legislative or administrative proceeding (must be “indispensable”).
3.4 Landmark Cases
| Case | G.R. No. / Date | Gist |
|---|---|---|
| People v. Ching | CA-G.R. CR-HC 08269, 2021 | First appellate conviction for WT (WhatsApp) redistribution of ex-girlfriend’s videos; court stressed each re-send is a separate count. |
| X v. AAA | SC (2nd Div.) G.R. 256001, 2023 | Injunction directing Facebook to preserve and take down intimate images within 24 h, affirming “right to be forgotten” under Data Privacy Act where sexual privacy is at stake. |
| Yap v. People | G.R. 262419, 2024 | SC clarified that mere possession of a consensually-recorded sex video after break-up is not per se punishable absent proof of intent to distribute. |
4. Cyber-Libel
4.1 How Cyber-Libel Differs From Offline Libel
| Element | Article 355 (RPC) | R.A. 10175 § 4 (c)(4) |
|---|---|---|
| Medium | Printing, radio, etc. | “Computer system or any other similar means” (tweets, FB posts, blogs, YouTube, etc.) |
| Penalty | Prisión correccional (6 mos 1 day – 6 yrs) | One degree higher → prisión mayor (6 yrs 1 day – 10 yrs) |
| Venue | Place of publication or complainant’s residence | Same + where the post was first accessed |
| Prescription | 1 year (Art. 90 RPC) | 15 years (SC in People v. Tulfo, 2022) |
4.2 Elements
- Defamatory imputation of a crime, vice, defect, etc.;
- Publication through a computer system;
- Identifiable victim;
- Malice, presumed for a private individual unless “fair and true report” or “qualified privilege.”
4.3 Major Supreme Court Decisions
| Case | Ruling |
|---|---|
| Disini v. SOJ (G.R. 203335, 18 Feb 2014) | Cyber-libel is constitutional; only original author, editor or uploader can be liable—mere “likers” or “retweeters” are not. |
| Fermin v. People (G.R. 235698, 08 Mar 2021) | Blog posts castigating a celebrity—SC upheld conviction; clarified that the “public figure doctrine” cuts only against damages, not criminal liability. |
| Tulfo v. People (G.R. 248398, 01 Aug 2022) | Raised prescriptive period to 15 years because cyber-libel penalty is prisión mayor (special law, Art. 92 RPC). |
| Ongpin v. People (En Banc, 2024) | Affirmed use of warrant of arrest even when the Information prays for fine alone; once Information is filed the court has discretion to set bail. |
4.4 Available Defences
- Truth and good motives or justifiable ends (Art. 361), but burden of proof on accused.
- Qualified privilege (fair comment on a matter of public interest).
- Actual malice must be shown when complainant is a public officer: People v. Flores (2023).
- “Single publication” rule adopted for websites (Diaz v. People, CA 2022) – repost within the author’s own feed is not a fresh offence.
5. Procedure & Enforcement
- Complaint: Affidavit submitted to either the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG), NBI Cybercrime Division, or directly to the prosecutor’s office.
- Preservation Order: Upon showing of probable cause, the court may issue a Cybercrime Warrant to Preserve Computer Data (WPCD) under DOJ Circular 11-2017.
- Takedown: Section 4 RA 9995 & § 7 RA 10175 allow courts to order temporary or permanent blocking; DICT’s Cybersecurity Bureau coordinates with platforms.
- Jurisdiction: Regional Trial Court (designated Cybercrime Court) if max penalty >6 years; otherwise MTC.
- Bail: Bailable as a matter of right if penalty ≤ 6 yrs; discretionary (but typically granted) for cyber-libel because only the maximum of prision mayor is bailable.
6. Intersection With Other Laws
| Scenario | Possible Additional Charge |
|---|---|
| Victim is a minor | R.A. 11930 (OSAEC): heavier penalties up to reclusion perpetua |
| Offender is an intimate partner | R.A. 9262: psychological violence via electronic means |
| Persistent unwanted sexual posts | R.A. 11313: online gender-based sexual harassment |
| Non-consensual processing of personal data | R.A. 10173: up to 6 yrs + ₱5 M |
7. Penalty Matrix (Snapshot 2025)
| Offence | Base Penalty | Aggravated Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Revenge porn (recording or first disclosure) | Prisión mayor max + ₱500 k | One degree higher if child victim; separate counts per repost |
| Revenge porn (mere re-sharing) | Same as above, counted per repost | |
| Cyber-libel | Prisión mayor min–med + fine | Each unique defamatory post a distinct crime; continuing display not new offence |
| Libelous comment/like/share | NOT a crime after Disini | – |
| VAWC electronic harassment | Prisión mayor | Maximum if committed in presence of child |
8. Current Reform Bills & Debates (19th Congress)
H.B. 5962 / S.B. 435 – “Non-Consensual Intimate Images Act”
- Would remove the ₱500 k cap, allow civil damages triple the actual harm, and compel platforms to act within 6 hours of notice.
S.B. 2102 – decriminalises libel and cyber-libel, converting them to purely civil torts; opposed by media groups arguing criminal stigma deters trolls more than fines.
DICT-endorsed proposal for a “trusted flagger” system giving PNP-ACG instant takedown access akin to EU’s DSM Directive.
9. Practical Guide for Victims
- Preserve evidence quickly (screenshots and full-URL HAR files).
- Write a sworn affidavit with chronology, include exact URLs, timestamps (Philippine Standard Time).
- File with PNP-ACG (Camp Crame) or NBI; bring USB with raw files.
- Simultaneously send a platform takedown (Facebook “Privacy Violation”, Twitter/X “Non-consensual nudity”, etc.).
- If imagery involves a minor, invoke R.A. 11930 – content is removed without need of court order.
- Seek a protection order under R.A. 9262 or R.A. 11313 if harassment is ongoing.
10. Key Take-Aways
- Revenge porn is punished principally by R.A. 9995; each act of sharing (even in private chat) is an independent felony.
- Cyber-libel inherits libel’s elements but carries a higher penalty and a longer 15-year prescriptive period.
- Jurisprudence after Disini narrows liability to original authors, sparing mere reactors.
- Concurrent statutes (VAWC, OSAEC, Safe Spaces Act, Data Privacy Act) can stack penalties or provide civil and administrative routes.
- Reform momentum is pushing for harsher revenge-porn sanctions and possible de-criminalisation of libel—but nothing has yet passed as of June 2025.
Bottom line: Philippine courts take non-consensual intimate imagery seriously, and cyber-defamation even more so after the one-degree-higher rule. At the same time, the legal landscape is fluid; practitioners must watch both Congress and the Supreme Court for the next shifts in penalties, prescription, and procedural rules.