Skip to main content

Legal Consequences of Spreading Fake News in the Philippines

In today’s digital landscape, fake news has become a serious threat to public order and national security. The Philippine legal framework provides mechanisms to prosecute individuals spreading false information, particularly when it causes harm or undue distress to others.

Legal Framework Against Fake News

📌 Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175) ✔ Covers online libel and fraud under Section 4. ✔ Moreover, any crimes committed in violation of RPC (Revised Penal Code) and/or SPL (Special Penal Laws) via information and communications technology (ICT), penalties are increased under Section 6.

📌 Revised Penal Code – Article 154 (Unlawful Use of Publication and Utterances) in relation to Sec. 6 of RA 10175 ✔ Penalizes the publication or spreading of false information that:

  • Endangers public order

  • Harms state interests

  • Encourages disobedience to the law ✔ Punishable by arresto mayor (one month to six months imprisonment) and a fine ranging from P40,000 to P200,000. ✔ If committed online, punishment increases to prisión correccional (six months to six years imprisonment) under RA 10175.

📌 Legal Enforcement and Monitoring ✔ Agencies involved in investigating cybercrimes:

  • PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (PNP-ACG)

  • National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)

  • Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT)

📌 How to Report Fake News ✔ A formal complaint must be filed before an investigation can proceed. ✔ Authorities apply for a court-issued warrant to disclose computer data. ✔ Victims must sign an affidavit under oath, ensuring accountability in legal proceedings.

Unjust Vexation in relation to Sec. 6 of RA 10175 as a Crime Related to Fake News

📌 Definition and Penalty ✔ Under the Revised Penal Code, unjust vexation is a form of coercion that causes annoyance, irritation, torment, distress, or disturbance to another person. ✔ Punishable by arresto menor (one day to one month imprisonment) or a fine of P1,000 to P40,000, or both.

📌 Elements of Unjust Vexation 1️⃣ There is a human act that annoys or irritates another person. 2️⃣ The act was not committed with violence. 3️⃣ It caused distress to the victim. 4️⃣ The offender acted with criminal intent.

📌 Supreme Court Rulings on Unjust Vexation 

✔ Renato Baleros Jr. vs. People (G.R. 138033, 2006) – the offender’s act causes torment, or distress may qualify as unjust vexation. 

 ✔ Maderazo vs. People (G.R. 165065, 2006) – Unjust vexation can occur even without physical harm or restraint. 

 ✔ RA 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act) – Digital harassment or misinformation MAY be prosecuted under unjust vexation laws, in relation to Sec. 6 of RA 10175.

📌 Key Principle: Respecting Others in Online Discourse 

 ✔ In Melchor G. Maderazo vs. People, the Supreme Court reiterated that laws against unjust vexation exist to prevent individuals from taking justice into their own hands. 

 ✔ Spreading fake news to deliberately harass, deceive, or annoy someone may constitute unjust vexation.

Legal Takeaways for Fake News and Digital Misinformation

✅ Fake news that endangers public order is punishable under Article 154 of the Revised Penal Code.

✅ The Cybercrime Prevention Act raises penalties for online offenses, including the unlawful dissemination of false information.

✅ Unjust vexation applies to digital spaces, including misinformation on social media, if it causes distress.

✅ Victims must file formal complaints for investigations to proceed.

✅ Online platforms can be compelled to preserve evidence for cybercrime cases.

✅ Efforts are underway to legally define “fake news” and establish ethical standards for social media personalities.

Conclusion

The Philippine legal system provides clear mechanisms to prosecute the spread of fake news and related offenses such as unjust vexation. Strengthening digital accountability and ethical standards will help ensure responsible online discourse and protect citizens from misinformation.

Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

Mandamus and its Application in Judicial Proceedings

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy compelling a tribunal, corporation, board, or person to perform a duty expressly required by law . It applies when: 1️⃣ An entity unlawfully neglects the performance of a legal duty arising from an office or trust. 2️⃣ An entity unlawfully excludes another from a right or office to which they are entitled. 3️⃣ There is no other adequate or speedy legal remedy available. 📌 Relevant Case: De Leon v. Duterte (G.R. No. 252118, 2020) Essential Elements of a Mandamus Petition 📌 To successfully invoke mandamus, the petitioner must prove: ✔ Legal Right – The petitioner must demonstrate a clear legal right to compel the action. ✔ Correlative Obligation – The respondent must have a duty to respect that right . ✔ Violation by the Respondent – There must be an act or omission violating the petitioner’s right . ✔ Refusal to Comply – A failure to perform the duty , whether explicit or implied, triggers a cause of action. 📌 Relevant Case: Phi...
Read more

People vs. Jugueta, 788 SCRA 331, G.R. No. 202124 April 5, 2016

G.R. No. 202124. April 5, 2016. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. IRENEO JUGUETA, accused-appellant. PONENTE:  PERALTA, J.:  Synopsis: In Criminal Case No. 7702-G, Irenneo Jugueta was charged with Multiple Attempted Murder along with Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel. However, Roger San Miguel moved for reinvestigation of the case and was eventually dismissed, leaving Irenneo as the only defendant. The prosecution's witness, Norberto, testified that Irenneo and the two other men entered his family's nipa hut and fired shots, causing the death of one daughter and injury to another. Irenneo offered a defense of denial and alibi, but this was found to be weak by the trial court, which ruled that Irenneo conspired with the two other men to shoot the family of Norberto. The trial court's judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The main issue raised in the appeal was the inconsistencies in Norberto's testimony, but these were deemed to be trivial an...
Read more

Mendoza v. de Los Santos G.R. No. 176422 |March 20, 2013

Case Digest: Mendoza v. de Los Santos G.R. No. 176422 | March 20, 2013 Ponente: 📌 Topic: Applicability of Reserva Troncal – First cousins of the descendant/prepositus are fourth-degree relatives and cannot be considered reservees/reservatarios. Facts The disputed parcel of land was originally owned by Exequiel Mendoza, who inherited it from Placido and Dominga Mendoza through an oral partition. Upon Exequiel’s death, ownership was transferred to his spouse Leonor and their only daughter, Gregoria. After Leonor’s passing, Gregoria became the sole owner. Gregoria died intestate, and her aunt Victoria Pantaleon, Leonor’s sister, adjudicated the property to herself as the sole surviving heir. Petitioners (grandchildren of Placido and Dominga) argued that the property should have been reserved for them under Article 891 of the Civil Code on Reserva Troncal. They filed an action for Recovery of Possession, Cancellation of TCT, and Reconveyance, which the RTC granted. However, the Court of A...
Read more