Can Deepfake Pornography Be Prosecuted in the Philippines?
Introduction
Deepfake pornography involves digitally altering or creating explicit images or videos by superimposing a person’s face onto sexual content. The material may appear authentic even though the person never participated in the depicted sexual act, never consented to the manipulation, and may have had no involvement in creating the original recording.
In the Philippines, prosecution may be considered under the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 and the Safe Spaces Act, depending on how the image or video was created, obtained, altered, shared, or published. The principal legal issue is whether the accused’s conduct falls within the specific statutory language of these laws.
What Laws May Apply to Deepfake Pornography?
The two most relevant statutes are R.A. No. 9995 and R.A. No. 11313. They address different forms of harm and do not impose identical requirements.
| Law | Conduct Relevant to Deepfakes | Important Requirement |
|---|---|---|
| R.A. No. 9995 | Capturing, copying, reproducing, selling, distributing, publishing, broadcasting, or exhibiting intimate images or recordings | The statute specifically refers to sexual acts or images of private areas, and Section 4(a) requires lack of consent and a reasonable expectation of privacy |
| R.A. No. 11313 | Uploading or sharing sexual media without consent, unauthorized recording and sharing, cyberstalking, and related online harassment | The conduct must fall within gender-based online sexual harassment and must involve the statutory forms of online abuse |
Application of the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act
Section 4 of R.A. No. 9995 prohibits several acts involving sexual images and recordings. These include taking photographs or videos of a person performing a sexual act, capturing an image of a person’s private area without consent where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, copying or reproducing the material, selling or distributing it, and publishing or broadcasting it.
The prohibition against copying, reproduction, sale, distribution, publication, broadcast, exhibition, or similar dissemination applies even when the person originally consented to the recording. Consent to make an original recording is therefore not consent to its later distribution or publication. (R.A. No. 9995)
Elements of Photo or Video Voyeurism
For an offense under Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 9995, the prosecution must establish the following:
- The accused took a photograph or video of a person or group performing a sexual act or similar activity, or captured an image of a private area such as the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast;
- The taking or capture was done without the consent of the person involved; and
- The person had a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances.
The Supreme Court has recognized that a conviction under Section 4(a) may rest on circumstantial evidence if the circumstances form an unbroken chain producing moral certainty of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. ( XXX261049 v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 261049, date of decision not stated in the cited material)
Does R.A. No. 9995 Cover a Purely Synthetic Deepfake?
Not automatically. R.A. No. 9995 is most clearly applicable when the accused used an actual intimate photograph or video of the victim, captured the victim’s private area, or recorded the victim performing a sexual act, and then altered, reproduced, or distributed that material.
A purely synthetic deepfake presents a more difficult statutory question when the victim’s face is placed onto another person’s body and no actual intimate image of the victim was captured or used. Section 4(a) speaks of taking a photograph or video of a person performing a sexual act or capturing an image of the person’s private area. Prosecutors must therefore prove that the alleged conduct fits the text of the statute rather than rely solely on the fact that the resulting image is offensive or sexually explicit.
R.A. No. 9995 may nevertheless be relevant to the subsequent copying, reproduction, sale, distribution, publication, or exhibition of qualifying sexual images or recordings. The prosecution must identify the prohibited material and establish the accused’s participation in the prohibited act.
Application of the Safe Spaces Act
Section 12 of R.A. No. 11313 defines gender-based online sexual harassment to include the use of information and communications technology to terrorize or intimidate victims, send unwanted sexual or sexist remarks, invade privacy through cyberstalking or incessant messaging, upload or share sexual media without consent, record or share the victim’s photos, videos, or information without authority, impersonate the victim, or post lies intended to harm the victim’s reputation.
Deepfake pornography may fall within this provision when the accused uses digital technology to create, upload, transmit, or share sexual material depicting or appearing to depict the victim without consent. The precise charge will depend on the evidence showing the act performed, the medium used, the lack of consent, and the resulting intimidation, harassment, privacy invasion, or reputational harm. (R.A. No. 11313)
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 11313 require covered institutions, including workplaces and schools, to adopt mechanisms for receiving and addressing complaints involving sexual harassment. (IRR of R.A. No. 11313)
Victim Reaction Is Not the Sole Test
The Supreme Court has ruled that liability under the Safe Spaces Act does not depend exclusively on whether the recipient expressly states that they felt threatened. The relevant inquiry concerns the acts of the perpetrator and whether those acts caused or were likely to cause mental, emotional, or psychological distress or fear for personal safety. ( In Re: Gadon, A.C. No. 13521, 2023)
Accordingly, a victim’s statement that the material caused humiliation, anxiety, distress, fear, or reputational injury may be important evidence, but the prosecution may also rely on the nature of the conduct, the manner of dissemination, the messages accompanying the material, the audience reached, and the surrounding circumstances.
Creation, Distribution, and Reposting
Different acts should be analyzed separately. Creating a deepfake, possessing it, sending it privately, posting it publicly, forwarding it to others, and threatening to release it may involve different legal theories and evidentiary requirements.
A person who did not create the deepfake may still face liability if that person knowingly uploaded, shared, distributed, or published the material without consent and the statutory elements are established. Reposting is not necessarily insulated from liability merely because the person was not the original creator.
Under R.A. No. 9995, the prohibitions on copying, reproducing, selling, distributing, publishing, broadcasting, showing, or exhibiting qualifying sexual material apply even when consent was given to the original recording. Under R.A. No. 11313, unauthorized online sharing of sexual media and unauthorized recording or sharing of a victim’s information may constitute gender-based online sexual harassment.
Consent and the Difference Between Recording and Publication
Consent must be examined with precision. Consent to be photographed, consent to record a sexual act, consent to send a private image, and consent to publish or distribute that image are not necessarily the same.
R.A. No. 9995 expressly provides that consent to record does not authorize later copying, reproduction, sale, distribution, publication, broadcast, showing, or exhibition. A defense based only on the victim’s earlier consent to the original recording may therefore be insufficient for a later dissemination charge.
For a fabricated image, the absence of consent to create or circulate the material is especially significant. Evidence should establish that the victim did not authorize the creation, alteration, uploading, transmission, or publication of the deepfake.
Evidence in Deepfake Pornography Cases
Digital evidence should be preserved before it is deleted, edited, or taken down. Useful evidence may include:
- Original files, downloaded copies, and available metadata;
- Screenshots showing the account name, URL, date, time, captions, comments, and audience;
- Messages containing threats, demands, admissions, or statements identifying the sender;
- Records showing how the material was obtained, altered, uploaded, or distributed; and
- Expert examination addressing manipulation, image matching, account attribution, and file authenticity.
Courts may convict on circumstantial evidence when the combined circumstances establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must still prove the identity of the perpetrator and every element of the offense. ( XXX261049 v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 261049, date of decision not stated in the cited material)
Identity and Attribution Problems
The existence of a deepfake does not by itself prove who created or distributed it. Investigators must connect the accused to the relevant account, device, file, message, payment, or online activity.
Evidence may include admissions, login records, device extraction, account recovery information, communications, witness testimony, payment records, or other circumstances showing that the accused controlled the account or participated in the dissemination.
The Supreme Court has emphasized in cybercrime cases that regulation of online conduct must respect privacy, due process, and other constitutional rights. Investigative and prosecutorial steps must therefore comply with applicable rules on search, seizure, authentication, and the handling of electronic evidence. ( Disini, Jr., et al. v. The Secretary of Justice, et al., G.R. No. 203335, 2014)
Possible Data Privacy Issues
The victim’s face, name, messages, and identifying details may constitute personal information. Processing or disclosing such information may also raise issues under R.A. No. 10173, particularly where the disclosure is unauthorized and not supported by a lawful basis.
However, liability under the Data Privacy Act is not automatic. The relevant elements generally require proof that the respondent processed personal or sensitive personal information and did so without the data subject’s consent or without authority under the law. (NPC 22-112, 2024; NPC 19-1429, 2024)
A complaint should therefore identify the personal information processed, the act of processing, the person responsible, the absence of consent or lawful authority, and the evidence connecting the respondent to the disclosure.
Possible Related Offenses
Other statutes may become relevant depending on the victim’s age, the content involved, the existence of threats, and the manner of dissemination. If the material involves a child, laws concerning child sexual abuse or exploitation materials may apply and should be examined separately from R.A. No. 9995 and R.A. No. 11313.
If the accused demanded money, property, sexual acts, or other compliance in exchange for withholding or deleting the deepfake, the threats and demands may support additional criminal charges. The proper offense will depend on the exact words used, the demand made, and the surrounding facts.
Recommended Steps for Victims
- Preserve evidence. Save the material, URLs, account information, messages, timestamps, and related communications. Avoid altering the original files.
- Record the circumstances. Prepare a chronology identifying when the victim learned of the material, who received it, and how it was distributed.
- Report the content. Use the platform’s reporting and preservation mechanisms, while keeping copies of the report and any reference number.
- Seek assistance from authorities. A complaint may be brought to the Philippine National Police Anti-Cybercrime Group, the National Bureau of Investigation Cybercrime Division, or the appropriate prosecutor’s office.
- Protect further dissemination. Avoid repeatedly forwarding the material, publicly identifying unverified suspects, or communicating with an alleged perpetrator without advice on preserving evidence and personal safety.
Practical Assessment for Prosecutors and Counsel
A well-supported complaint should distinguish between the creation of the synthetic image and the later acts of distribution or publication. It should also specify whether the evidence involves an actual intimate image of the victim, a wholly fabricated image, or a combination of genuine and altered material.
Counsel should identify the exact statutory act charged, establish the victim’s lack of consent, preserve evidence of attribution, and address authentication issues at the earliest stage. The complaint should not assume that every offensive deepfake automatically satisfies the elements of photo or video voyeurism.
Conclusion
Deepfake pornography may be prosecuted under Philippine law, but the applicable charge depends on the material used, the manner of creation, the acts of distribution, the victim’s lack of consent, and the evidence connecting the accused to the conduct.
R.A. No. 9995 is particularly relevant to the unauthorized capture, reproduction, distribution, publication, or exhibition of qualifying intimate images and recordings. R.A. No. 11313 may apply when digital technology is used to upload or share sexual media without consent, invade privacy, impersonate the victim, or cause or threaten the forms of distress and harassment covered by the Safe Spaces Act.
The strongest cases preserve the original digital evidence, establish the chain of distribution, prove account or device attribution, and match the alleged acts to the exact elements of the offense charged.
About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices
Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.
