The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that psychological violence committed through Facebook may carry a penalty higher by one degree under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, provided the use of information and communications technology is alleged in the criminal charge and proven during trial.
In a resolution penned by SC associate justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the court’s First Division affirmed with modification its Oct. 22, 2025 decision upholding the conviction of a man for psychologically abusing his former girlfriend through derogatory and threatening Facebook posts.
The court increased his prison sentence from a maximum of eight years and one day to a range of six years and one day to 14 years, eight months, and one day. It also ordered him to pay a P100,000 fine and undergo psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.
The case involved a man identified as XXX and his former girlfriend, AAA, with whom he has a daughter.
Years after their relationship ended, AAA’s siblings received a Facebook Messenger message from an account they recognized as belonging to XXX. The following day, AAA learned that the same account had published a public post calling her a dirty woman and an animal and threatening to punch her.
AAA filed a complaint under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act.
During trial, the prosecution presented printouts of screenshots of the Facebook post. AAA testified that she had created the account for XXX years earlier but that he had since been using it. Her siblings also identified the account as his and said they had received messages from him through it.
XXX denied owning the account, although he acknowledged that the profile photo showed him and one of his children with his current live-in partner.
He claimed that someone could have used his photo to create a fake account and that he could not have posted the statements because he was working as a waiter at the time without access to his phone.
The Family Court and the Court of Appeals rejected his denial and found him guilty. The SC subsequently affirmed the conviction.
In denying his motion for reconsideration with finality, the court ruled that his authorship of the Facebook post had been established beyond reasonable doubt.
It stressed that the finding was not based solely on the account’s use of his name and photograph but on several circumstances linking him to the account and the post.
The court identified several factors that may be considered in determining who owns or controls a social media account. These include an admission of ownership or authorship, evidence that the accused was seen accessing the account, information in a post known only to the offender or a limited number of people, language consistent with the offender’s characteristics, and records or forensic evidence connecting the account to the accused.
Previous posts, conduct consistent with the disputed material, and other circumstances showing ownership, access or authorship may also be considered.
The court found that all the elements of psychological violence under the Anti-VAWC Act were present, including the mental and emotional anguish and public ridicule suffered by AAA because of the Facebook post.
It also applied Section 6 of RA 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which requires a penalty higher by one degree when a crime is committed through ICT.
According to the court, the higher penalty reflects how technology may help offenders evade liability, reach a wider audience or cause greater harm.
For the increased penalty to apply, however, the use of ICT must be sufficiently alleged in the criminal Information and established during trial.
The court said the qualifying circumstance need not be stated using the cybercrime law’s exact language, provided the allegations clearly inform the accused that ICT was used to commit the offense.
In this case, the Information alleged that XXX made the post using his “Facebook Messenger Account… which was set to public view.”
The court found the allegation sufficient even though the Information did not expressly use the term “ICT.” It said Facebook falls within the definition of an ICT system because it enables users to generate, send, receive, store and process electronic data through computers, mobile phones and similar devices.
