MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court ruled that psychological violence committed through Facebook warrants a higher penalty under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, even if the criminal Information does not expressly use the term "information and communications technology" (ICT), so long as the use of the social media platform is clearly alleged and proven during trial.
In a resolution penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the high tribunal's First Division affirmed with modification its Oct. 22, 2025 decision convicting a man of violating Republic Act (RA) 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) Act, for publicly insulting and threatening his former partner on Facebook.
The Court increased the penalty by one degree under Section 6 of RA 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, after finding that the offense was committed through Facebook, an ICT system, as sufficiently alleged in the Information and established by evidence.
The case arose from a former couple with a daughter. After their relationship ended, the victim blocked the accused on social media following an incident in which he allegedly grabbed and groped her.
Years later, the victim's siblings received a Facebook Messenger message from an account they recognized as belonging to the accused, blaming her for his mother's heart attack. The same account later posted public statements calling her a "dirty woman" and an "animal" and threatening to assault her, with similar insults appearing in the comments section. Fearing for her safety, the victim filed a complaint for psychological violence under the Anti-VAWC Act.
During trial, prosecutors presented screenshots of the Facebook posts. The victim testified that she had created the account for the accused, who had since been using it, while her siblings said they had communicated with him through the same account.
The accused denied owning the account, claiming it was fake and arguing he could not have made the posts because he was at work and had no access to his phone.
The Family Court and the Court of Appeals rejected his defense and convicted him.
In denying his motion for reconsideration with finality, the Court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused authored the Facebook posts. It said this finding was based not only on the account's name and profile photo but also on other evidence linking him to the account.
The Court reiterated that authorship of a social media account may be established through admissions, witness testimony, account activity, distinctive language, digital forensic evidence, service provider records, or other circumstances showing control of the account.
It also found that all the elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC Act had been proven, including the victim's mental and emotional anguish and public humiliation.
The Court stressed that Section 6 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act imposes a penalty one degree higher for crimes committed through ICT because technology allows offenders to reach more victims, evade detection, and inflict greater harm.
It clarified that while qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the Information, the exact wording of the law is unnecessary. Alleging that the accused posted the offensive statements through a publicly accessible Facebook account was sufficient to notify him that the prosecution was invoking the use of ICT as a qualifying circumstance.
The Court increased the prison term from six months and one day to eight years to six years and one day to 14 years, eight months and one day. It also retained the P100,000 fine and ordered the accused to undergo psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.
