Here’s a practical, lawyerly explainer for the Philippine setting—useful to families, schools, LGUs, HR/compliance, and counsel.

Unauthorized Video of a Person with Disability (PWD) Posted Online

Criminal liability, related offenses, evidence, takedown, and remedies in the Philippines

1) Core problem, framed

An unauthorized video of a PWD uploaded or shared online can trigger multiple, stackable liabilities—criminal, civil, administrative—and platform consequences. The exact mix depends on what the video shows (e.g., ridicule, abuse, nudity, private setting, doxxing), who the subject is (adult vs. child, woman/partner, student), where/how it was recorded (public vs. private), and how it was distributed (original upload, re-post, group chat).

2) Primary criminal hooks commonly implicated

A) PWD protection—ridicule/vilification

The Magna Carta for Persons with Disability (R.A. 7277 as amended, often referenced with R.A. 9442) penalizes public ridicule, vilification, and discrimination against PWDs.
Conduct that holds a PWD up to humiliation or contempt (e.g., mocking tics, seizures, mobility/communication aids; staging “pranks” to exploit impairment) may be prosecuted even if no physical injury occurs.
Online dissemination can qualify as the “public” element; repeated sharing can aggravate exposure.

B) Libel/defamation—including online

Libel (Revised Penal Code) attaches to false, malicious imputations that damage reputation.
Cyber libel (R.A. 10175, Cybercrime Prevention Act) applies when done through a computer system (social media posts, uploads). Penalties are harsher than offline libel.
Attaching false captions to a PWD’s video (“scammer,” “thief,” etc.) is classic libel exposure.

C) Unjust vexation / other RPC offenses

Non-consensual filming meant to annoy, disturb, or humiliate can fall under unjust vexation or related misdemeanors—often used where conduct is degrading but not neatly libelous.

D) Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism (R.A. 9995)

Criminalizes recording and/or sharing images/videos of a person’s private parts or sexual act without consent, even if the face is hidden.
Applies where the unauthorized PWD video involves nudity/sexual contexts (e.g., bathing, toileting, medical procedures) or upskirt/down-blouse shots.
Mere embarrassment without sexual/nudity content is outside R.A. 9995—but may still hit other laws above.

E) Anti-Wiretapping (R.A. 4200)

Bans recording of private communications or spoken words without consent.
If the video captures a private conversation (with audio) in a private setting, this law can apply.
Purely silent video in public areas typically does not.

F) Data Privacy Act (R.A. 10173)

Processing/disclosure of personal information without lawful basis can be criminal, especially if the video reveals sensitive personal information (e.g., health/disability status).
The “personal/household” exemption is unlikely if content is posted publicly or shared widely.

G) If the PWD is a child

R.A. 7610 (Special Protection of Children) penalizes other acts of abuse causing mental or emotional injury; online humiliation can qualify.
R.A. 9775 (Anti-Child Pornography) applies if the content is sexual or lascivious.
Cyber provisions (R.A. 10175) support data preservation and evidence-gathering.

H) If the PWD is a woman abused by an intimate partner

R.A. 9262 (VAWC) can cover electronic harassment, public shaming, and non-consensual dissemination by the intimate partner; protection orders and criminal liability follow.

I) Gender-Based Online Sexual Harassment (R.A. 11313)

If the content is sexist, misogynistic, or sexual in nature (e.g., body-shaming, sexualized edits), this law adds criminal/administrative exposure and specific PNP/Barangay response protocols.

3) “Uploader” vs. “Sharer” vs. “Commenter”: who’s liable?

Primary uploader: liable for the original unlawful processing/publication.
Re-posters/sharers: can be independently liable (e.g., libel republication rule; unlawful disclosure under the Data Privacy Act; continued ridicule under PWD law).
Commenters: libel or GBV harassment liability for defamatory/sexist remarks; aiding/abetting under cybercrime in egregious cases.
Admins/mods of private groups**: exposure if they solicit/curate illegal content or refuse to take down after notice.

4) Consent, expectation of privacy, and context

Consent to record ≠ consent to publish. Absent express permission to disclose online, uploading can still be unlawful.
Place matters: private (home, restroom, clinic) increases criminal exposure; public areas narrow privacy claims but do not immunize ridicule/defamation/child abuse.
Context matters: a documentary capturing PWD advocacy with informed consent differs from a mocking prank staged to harvest clicks.

5) Evidence & preservation (what to capture today)

Full-page screenshots showing URL, date/time, handle, view counts; better: screen recording of the page + profile.
Copy the post HTML/permalink; note platform case/reference # after reporting.
Save original file hashes if you have the source; keep device unchanged (no factory reset).
Collect witness statements (who saw it live, who downloaded/forwarded).
For children/trauma, coordinate with WCPD/DSWD to avoid repeated recounting; use forensic interview protocols.

6) Immediate response playbook (victim/family/counsel)

Platform takedown
- Report under harassment/abuse, privacy, sexual exploitation, or hateful conduct/disability categories.
- Use the rights-owner or privacy reporting channels (often prioritized).
Criminal track
- File a blotter and sworn complaint with PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group or NBI Cybercrime Division.
- Ask for data preservation and, where needed, cyber warrants to unmask pseudonymous uploaders.
Civil track
- Send demand letters for takedown, retraction, and damages (moral/exemplary).
- File civil action for damages (Arts. 19/20/21 Civil Code—abuse of rights, tort) and, where applicable, defamation.
- Seek injunction/interim relief to stop continued sharing.
Administrative/Agency angles
- Data Privacy complaint for unlawful processing/disclosure (especially if video reveals health/disability).
- School/Workplace proceedings when conduct involves students/employees (Anti-Bullying policies; Safe Spaces Act rules).
Safety & psychosocial
- For children or severely distressed victims, request psychosocial intervention; consider no-contact/Stay-Away orders under relevant laws (e.g., VAWC, Safe Spaces Act).

7) Defenses you’ll hear—and how to counter

“It’s free speech / public interest.” Free speech doesn’t protect defamation, discrimination, child abuse, or privacy violations. Satire isn’t a shield for targeted ridicule of disability.
“It was in public, so no privacy.” Even if privacy is thin, ridicule of PWDs, libel, child abuse, or GBV harassment can still be criminal.
“I didn’t upload; I just shared.” Republication rules and unlawful disclosure provisions can independently attach; take-down on notice is prudent but not guaranteed immunity.
“There was consent.” Demand proof of informed, voluntary, specific consent to publish online—not just to be present or casually filmed.

8) Special fact patterns

Prank channels / “content farming” Monetized ridicule of a PWD mixes PWD ridicule offense + libel + DPA; evidence of commercial gain can support exemplary damages.
Medical/clinical setting video Possible voyeurism, privacy, and professional violations; facility can face administrative sanctions and civil liability.
School setting For a PWD student, activate Anti-Bullying and Child Protection policies; schools must intervene, document, and sanction promptly.
Intimate partners If the perpetrator is a spouse/partner, assess VAWC exposure and seek protection orders that include digital takedown terms.

9) Remedies & penalties (high level, because facts drive outcomes)

Fines and imprisonment under PWD ridicule/ vilification provisions; higher penalties for cyber modalities (via R.A. 10175 where applicable).
R.A. 9995: imprisonment + fines; automatic civil indemnity; devices/media forfeited.
R.A. 4200: imprisonment for unlawful recording of private communications.
R.A. 10173: criminal fines/imprisonment for unlawful processing/disclosure, aggravated when sensitive health/impairment data are exposed.
R.A. 7610 / 9775 / 11313 / 9262: specific penalties plus protection orders, counseling, restitution, and no-contact conditions.
Civil damages: moral, exemplary, temperate/actual, attorney’s fees (especially for children/egregious humiliation).

10) Practical drafting aids (short forms you can adapt)

A) Demand for Takedown & Preservation (to uploader/platform)

We represent [Name], a person with disability unlawfully recorded and published via [URL] on [date/time]. The post constitutes (ridicule/discrimination of a PWD, defamation, unlawful disclosure of sensitive personal information) and violates Philippine law and platform policies. Demand: (1) Immediate removal, (2) account sanctions, (3) preservation of logs/content for law enforcement. Please confirm within 24 hours; legal action is reserved.

B) Criminal Complaint—key attachments checklist

Sworn narrative; screenshots/recordings with URLs and timestamps; device serials; witness affidavits; medical/psych reports (if applicable); platform ticket IDs; proof of victim’s PWD status (ID/medical note if relevant).

11) Compliance checklists

Victim/Family

Screenshot/record URL + timestamps
Report to platform (get ticket ID)
Blotter + sworn complaint to ACG/NBI
Demand letter (takedown + preserve)
Consider civil action for damages
For minors/partners: protection orders

Schools/Employers (when incident involves your community)

Receive and log the report; secure evidence
Activate Child Protection/Anti-Bullying or Safe Spaces protocols
Order takedown by your personnel/ students; impose interim measures
Coordinate with parents/guardians, WCPD, and DSWD if a child is involved

Counsel

Map offenses (PWD ridicule, libel, DPA, voyeurism, VAWC/GBV)
Parallel criminal & civil tracks; draft injunction
Seek data preservation/cyber warrants via LE
Prepare expert testimony (psych, IT forensics) for damages and authenticity

12) Bottom line

Posting or sharing an unauthorized video that ridicules, humiliates, sexualizes, or exposes private information about a PWD can be criminal on several fronts—even if filmed in public and even if “meant as a joke.”
Uploader and re-posters alike face risk; consent to record is not consent to publish.
The strongest outcomes come from fast evidence preservation, platform takedown, and parallel criminal–civil action tailored to the video’s content and context (PWD protections, defamation, privacy, voyeurism, child/GBV laws).

This is general information, not legal advice. For a live case, have counsel review the exact footage, captions, and distribution trail to select the tightest charges and remedies.