Can Influencers Be Prosecuted for Illegal Online Gambling and E-Sabong?
Introduction
Influencers, streamers, content creators, and online personalities may face criminal exposure when they promote unauthorized betting platforms or actively help operate digital gambling activities. The risk is greater where the promotion includes referral links, personalized betting codes, instructions on placing wagers, recruitment of bettors, or direct coordination with the gambling operator.
Promotion alone does not automatically establish criminal liability. Prosecutors must still prove the specific acts connecting the content creator to the illegal gambling activity, including the nature of the betting scheme, the person’s participation, and the required criminal intent or knowledge under the applicable law.
What Conduct May Constitute Illegal Online Gambling?
Presidential Decree No. 1602 penalizes persons who, in any manner, directly or indirectly take part in illegal or unauthorized gambling activities or games in which money, articles of value, or their equivalent are wagered.
The provision covers participation that is not limited to personally placing a bet. Depending on the evidence, liability may extend to persons who facilitate, administer, promote, recruit bettors for, or otherwise materially assist an unauthorized betting operation. The statutory prohibition includes gambling schemes conducted through digital platforms when the essential elements of illegal gambling are present. (Presidential Decree No. 1602.)
However, not every online mention of a betting site proves criminal participation. The prosecution must establish the accused’s direct or indirect participation in the gambling activity with competent evidence.
When Does Promotion Become Criminal Participation?
The Supreme Court has held that a prosecution under Presidential Decree No. 1602 requires proof of the accused’s direct or indirect participation in the gambling activity. Mere presence at the scene, or vague testimony from arresting officers, is insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence. (Beloncio et al. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 248583, 2025.)
In Beloncio, the Court emphasized that the prosecution must present specific evidence concerning the gambling operation, including the game being played, the identity of the person administering the bets, the identity of the bettors, and the denomination of the money wagered. Uncertainty on material details may create reasonable doubt. (Beloncio et al. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 248583, 2025.)
Applied to influencers, the following acts may support an allegation of participation when proven by evidence:
- recruiting or directing viewers to an unauthorized betting website;
- providing an affiliate or referral code tied to bettor registrations or wagers;
- receiving commissions based on bets, deposits, losses, or recruited users;
- explaining how viewers can create accounts, deposit funds, and place bets;
- hosting livestreams that display or administer betting activities; or
- coordinating with the operator to attract bettors or increase wagering.
The decisive question is not simply whether the influencer mentioned the platform. It is whether the person’s conduct, viewed together with the surrounding evidence, constituted direct or indirect participation in an unauthorized gambling operation.
How Does the Anti-POGO Act Affect Online Gambling Promotion?
Republic Act No. 12312, or the Anti-POGO Act of 2025, prohibits persons or entities from conducting or offering offshore gaming in the Philippines. The prohibited acts include establishing, operating, or conducting offshore gaming; accepting bets; acting as a POGO gaming content provider or service provider; creating or operating a POGO hub or site; and introducing, using, or possessing POGO gaming equipment or paraphernalia.
The law also prohibits aiding, protecting, or abetting prohibited offshore gaming activities. Among the listed examples are registering companies used to conceal offshore gaming operations and providing property, vehicles, computer systems, hardware, digital platforms, or applications for prohibited activities. (Republic Act No. 12312.)
Accordingly, an influencer may face exposure under the Anti-POGO Act if the evidence shows that the person knowingly assisted a prohibited offshore gaming operation rather than merely publishing an unrelated or general discussion about online gambling.
The characterization of the platform is important. An e-sabong operation, an ordinary online casino, and a prohibited offshore gaming operation may involve different statutory provisions. Investigators and prosecutors must identify the particular law allegedly violated and prove all of its elements.
What About E-Sabong Promotion?
The available authorities establish general rules on illegal gambling and prohibited offshore gaming, but they do not by themselves provide a complete, e-sabong-specific test for influencer liability. The exact analysis depends on the legal status of the platform, the authority or license under which it operated, the content creator’s agreement with the operator, and the acts performed by the creator.
A content creator who merely comments on e-sabong as news or entertainment presents a different case from one who supplies betting links, promotes deposits, recruits users, receives commissions, or helps process wagers. The latter facts may support a finding of indirect participation, subject to proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Where the operation is unauthorized, the prosecution may rely on the general prohibition against directly or indirectly taking part in illegal gambling under Presidential Decree No. 1602. If the operation also falls within prohibited offshore gaming, Republic Act No. 12312 may provide an additional or different basis for liability.
What Evidence May Be Used Against an Influencer?
Potential evidence may include livestream recordings, social-media posts, referral links, affiliate dashboards, payment records, contracts, private messages, digital wallets, bank transfers, device extractions, subscriber communications, and testimony from bettors or platform personnel.
Evidence should establish more than the existence of promotional content. It should connect the influencer to the operation and show the person’s role, knowledge, and participation. In particular, investigators may examine whether the influencer:
- had a continuing commercial relationship with the betting operator;
- received compensation tied to registrations, deposits, or bets;
- possessed administrative access to the betting platform;
- communicated operational instructions to bettors; or
- knew that the platform lacked lawful authority.
As recognized by the Supreme Court in Beloncio, vague testimony and general descriptions of an alleged gambling activity do not substitute for proof of the accused’s actual participation and the material details of the betting operation. (Beloncio et al. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 248583, 2025.)
Does an Affiliate Agreement Automatically Establish Liability?
No. An affiliate agreement may be significant evidence, but it does not automatically establish guilt. The prosecution must still prove that the agreement related to an unauthorized gambling operation and that the accused’s acts satisfied the elements of the offense charged.
Compensation based on bettor activity may strengthen the inference that the influencer was not merely an advertiser but was economically integrated into the gambling operation. Nevertheless, the prosecution must prove the relevant facts through admissible evidence and establish criminal liability beyond reasonable doubt.
What Defenses May Be Relevant?
The available defenses depend on the charge and evidence. Common issues may include lack of knowledge that the platform was unauthorized, absence of direct or indirect participation, mistaken identity, fabricated or altered digital evidence, lack of proof that wagers were actually accepted, and failure to establish the particular gambling activity or money involved.
A defense based solely on the label “advertisement” may be insufficient if the evidence shows that the influencer recruited bettors, supplied betting instructions, received commissions from wagers, or helped administer the operation. Conversely, the prosecution cannot obtain a conviction merely by showing that the accused appeared in promotional material.
Where the charge involves offshore gaming, the defense should also examine whether the prosecution has established that the platform fell within the statutory definition of prohibited offshore gaming and that the accused performed one of the prohibited acts under Republic Act No. 12312.
Practical Compliance Measures for Content Creators
Content creators should conduct due diligence before accepting gambling-related sponsorships. At a minimum, they should verify the operator’s legal authority, preserve written contracts, identify the products and services being promoted, and avoid accepting compensation calculated from deposits, bets, or user losses unless the arrangement has been reviewed for legal compliance.
Creators should not provide instructions for circumventing restrictions, disguise betting links, use false claims about licensing, or represent that an unauthorized platform is government-approved. They should also preserve campaign records and promptly obtain legal advice if law-enforcement authorities request access to their devices, accounts, or communications.
Operators and advertisers should separately assess whether the campaign involves ordinary advertising, affiliate marketing, betting administration, recruitment, payment processing, or assistance to a prohibited offshore gaming operation. Those distinctions may affect the offense charged and the evidence required.
Conclusion
Influencers may be prosecuted when their conduct demonstrates direct or indirect participation in illegal online gambling or assistance to a prohibited offshore gaming operation. Promotional content becomes legally dangerous when combined with referral arrangements, betting instructions, user recruitment, commission payments, or operational assistance.
The prosecution must still prove the specific elements of the offense. Under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Beloncio, mere presence, general promotion, or vague testimony is not enough; the evidence must reliably establish the accused’s participation and the material details of the gambling activity. (Beloncio et al. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 248583, 2025.)
Before publishing or accepting payment for gambling-related content, influencers should verify the operator’s authority, avoid facilitating wagers, maintain complete records, and obtain Philippine legal advice concerning the specific platform and campaign.
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.
