Short answer. Yes. Truth is not a complete shield here. The Revised Penal Code punishes a reporter, editor or manager who publishes facts connected with another person's private life that are offensive to that person's honor, virtue and reputation — even when the facts came out in a judicial or administrative proceeding.
What the law says
any reporter, editor or manager of a newspaper, daily or magazine, who shall publish facts connected with the private life of another and offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said person, even though said publication be made in connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any judicial or administrative proceedings wherein such facts have been mentioned
Revised Penal Code, Article 357 — Publishing Private Life Facts. Read the full provision →
Why truth does not settle the question
Most people assume that if something really happened, publishing it must be safe. This provision is built on the opposite premise. The wrong it targets is not falsehood but exposure — the airing of matters belonging to a person's private life that wound honor, virtue and reputation. Two elements have to be present: the facts must be connected with the private life of another, and they must be offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of that person. Matters that are genuinely public — the conduct of an official in office, the operation of a business, a person's own public statements — are not the private life the article protects.
The court-record trap
The most useful part of the article is its closing clause. Publishing embarrassing private facts is not excused merely because they surfaced in a case. The law says so expressly: liability attaches "even though said publication be made in connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any judicial or administrative proceedings wherein such facts have been mentioned." Reporting that a hearing took place, what was charged, and what was decided is one thing. Lifting the intimate details recited in an affidavit or a transcript and publishing them because they are technically on the record is precisely what this provision was written to stop.
The current penalty
The penalty is arresto mayor, or a fine of ₱40,000 to ₱200,000, or both. Those amounts are the ones set by Republic Act No. 10951 (2017), which updated fines throughout the Revised Penal Code. Many circulating copies of the Code, including textbooks and websites, still print the original 1930 figures, which are far smaller and are no longer in force. If a source you are reading quotes a different fine, check which version it reproduces. Note too that the article names reporter, editor or manager — it is aimed at people who publish, and responsibility can run up the editorial chain.
Exposure beyond this article
A single publication rarely raises only one issue. The same material can draw a libel complaint if it is also defamatory, a civil claim for damages for a violation of privacy, and, where personal information is processed, questions under the data privacy law. Online publication brings its own statute into play. Before you post, the practical questions are whether the fact is genuinely private, whether there is a real public interest in it beyond curiosity, and whether you can document your basis. This is general information about the offence, not an opinion on any piece you are about to publish.