Reyes Law Office - Dagupan City

Reyes Law Office - Dagupan City Reyes Law Office is a full-service law firm and notary public in Dagupan City

Section 6 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 mandates the imposition of a penalty higher by one degree for crimes ...
03/08/2026

Section 6 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 mandates the imposition of a penalty higher by one degree for crimes and offenses committed using Information and Communications Technology (ICT). It noted that the law imposes a higher penalty because the use of ICT can enable offenders to evade liability, reach more victims, or cause greater harm.

The SC emphasized that for the higher penalty to apply, the use of ICT must be adequately alleged in the criminal Information and proven during trial. It clarified that qualifying circumstances, such as the use of ICT, must be stated in an ordinary and concise language but not necessarily in the exact wording used by the law.

Happy Birthday, Atty. Jona Reyes ๐Ÿฅณ Cheers to another year of purpose, grace, and new milestones. โœจ We are grateful to le...
18/07/2026

Happy Birthday, Atty. Jona Reyes ๐Ÿฅณ

Cheers to another year of purpose, grace, and new milestones. โœจ
We are grateful to learn from your leadership and to be part of your journey.

"May He give you the desire of your heart and make all your plans succeed."
โ€” Psalm 20:4

17/07/2026

The (SC) has ruled that the infliction of psychological violence, if done through Facebook, is considered done through information and communications technology, which warrants the imposition of a higher penalty pursuant to Section 6 of RA 10175 or the ๐˜Š๐˜บ๐˜ฃ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ค๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ ๐˜—๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ต ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง 2012.

In a Resolution penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SCโ€™s First Division affirmed with modification its October 22, 2025 Decision (assailed Decision), which upheld the conviction of an individual (###) for committing psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9262, or the ๐˜ˆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ช-๐˜๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ค๐˜ฆ ๐˜ˆ๐˜จ๐˜ข๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜ด๐˜ต ๐˜ž๐˜ฐ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜›๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ช๐˜ณ ๐˜Š๐˜ฉ๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ฅ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ต ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง 2004 (Anti-VAWC Act) against his ex-girlfriend (AAA) by posting derogatory statements about her on Facebook.

The SC, however, resolved to raise the penalty by one degree, considering that the offense was committed through Facebook, as adequately alleged in the Information and established during trial.

AAA filed the VAWC case against her former partner ### after he posted a statement on Facebook calling her a dirty woman and an animal, and threatening to box her when he sees her. He repeated the insults in the comments to the post, which was public.

During trial, AAA presented screenshots of the Facebook post and testified that she had created for ### the Facebook account which made the post. Her two siblings testified that the account was ###โ€™s and that they received messages from him through the same account.

Despite ###โ€™s denial, the SC, in its assailed Decision, affirmed the decisions of the Family Court and the Court of Appeals (CA) convicting ###, stressing that in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove not only the elements of the crime but also the identity of the offender. The SC also upheld the penalty imposed by the CA, consisting of imprisonment for six months and one day to eight years and one day, a fine of PHP 100,000, and psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

Resolving ###โ€™s Motion for Reconsideration, the SC held that ###โ€™s authorship of the Facebook post was established beyond reasonable doubt, using the guideposts it established in its assailed Decision:

๐Ÿ. ๐€๐๐ฆ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐Ÿ ๐จ๐ฐ๐ง๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ ๐จ๐ซ ๐š๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ซ๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ;
๐Ÿ. ๐๐ž๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ฌ๐ž๐ž๐ง ๐š๐œ๐œ๐ž๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐š๐œ๐œ๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ญ ๐จ๐ซ ๐œ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ;
๐Ÿ‘. ๐‚๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐š๐ข๐ง๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ข๐ง๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ค๐ง๐จ๐ฐ๐ง ๐จ๐ง๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐จ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ๐ž๐ง๐๐ž๐ซ ๐จ๐ซ ๐š ๐Ÿ๐ž๐ฐ ๐ฉ๐ž๐จ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ž;
๐Ÿ’. ๐‹๐š๐ง๐ ๐ฎ๐š๐ ๐ž ๐œ๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐จ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ๐ž๐ง๐๐ž๐ซโ€™๐ฌ ๐œ๐ก๐š๐ซ๐š๐œ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐œ๐ฌ;
๐Ÿ“. ๐‘๐ž๐œ๐จ๐ซ๐๐ฌ ๐Ÿ๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐ž๐ซ๐ง๐ž๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ž๐ซ๐ฏ๐ข๐œ๐ž ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ž๐ซ, ๐ญ๐ž๐ฅ๐ž๐œ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ง๐ข๐œ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐œ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐š๐ง๐ฒ, ๐จ๐ซ ๐ฌ๐จ๐œ๐ข๐š๐ฅ ๐ฆ๐ž๐๐ข๐š ๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ž, ๐š๐ง๐ ๐ซ๐ž๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ญ๐ฌ ๐Ÿ๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ ๐๐ž๐ฏ๐ข๐œ๐ž ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ๐ž๐ง๐ฌ๐ข๐œ ๐š๐ง๐š๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฐ๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ ๐ž๐จ๐ฅ๐จ๐œ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐Ÿ๐ž๐š๐ญ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ž๐ฌ, ๐š๐ง๐ ๐จ๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ซ ๐š๐ญ๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐›๐ฎ๐ญ๐ž๐ฌ ๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐ค๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐š๐œ๐œ๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐ก๐ž ๐จ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ๐ž๐ง๐๐ž๐ซ;
๐Ÿ”. ๐€๐œ๐ญ๐ฌ ๐œ๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ž๐ฏ๐ข๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ฌ; ๐จ๐ซ
๐Ÿ•. ๐Ž๐ญ๐ก๐ž๐ซ ๐ข๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐š๐ง๐œ๐ž๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฐ๐ข๐ง๐  ๐จ๐ฐ๐ง๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ, ๐š๐œ๐œ๐ž๐ฌ๐ฌ, ๐จ๐ซ ๐š๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ซ๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ.

The authorship of the Facebook post and all the elements of psychological violence having been established, the SC said Section 6 of the ๐˜Š๐˜บ๐˜ฃ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ค๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ ๐˜—๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ต ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง 2012 applies, which mandates the imposition of a penalty higher by one degree for crimes and offenses committed using ICT. The use of ICT can enable offenders to evade liability, reach more victims, or cause greater harm.

Citing the definition of ICT, the Court ruled that social media platforms, such as Facebook, qualify as ICT systems because they allow users to generate, send, receive, store, and process electronic data messages through computers, mobile phones, or similar electronic devices.

In this case, the Information alleged that ### made the Facebook post using his "Facebook Messenger Accountโ€ฆ which was set to public view." The SC ruled that this statement constitutes a sufficient allegation of the use of ICT as a qualifying circumstance. Even if the term "ICT" was not stated, the Information adequately informed ### that he is being charged of inflicting psychological violence upon AAA through Facebook, which falls under the contemplation of an ICT system.

The allegation was established by the prosecution during trial.

Thus, the Court increased the penalty by one degree from six months and one day to eight years and one day to imprisonment of six years and one day to 14 years, eight months, and one day, but retained the fined PHP 100,000. He was likewise ordered to undergo psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168987

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168968

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIOโ€™s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution

Under Article 430 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, every property owner has the right to enjoy, possess, and protec...
15/07/2026

Under Article 430 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, every property owner has the right to enjoy, possess, and protect their property.

In addition, Article 448 of the Civil Code provides rules when a person builds on land owned by another. The rights and obligations of both the landowner and the builder depend on the facts of the case, including whether the construction was made in good faith or bad faith.

Not every encroachment means the structure can be removed immediately. The law provides specific remedies, and each situation must be evaluated based on the evidence and applicable legal provisions.

Can someone else file an adultery case on behalf of the offended spouse?The Supreme Court recently reiterated that only ...
02/07/2026

Can someone else file an adultery case on behalf of the offended spouse?

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that only the offended spouse has the legal right to file a complaint for adultery.

Under Rule 110, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, adultery and concubinage are private crimes that may be prosecuted only upon a complaint personally filed by the offended spouse.

In this case, the complaint was filed by the offended spouse's representative. Although the offended spouse's complaint-affidavit was attached as an annex, the Supreme Court ruled that this did not satisfy the legal requirement because the complaint itself was not initiated by the offended spouse.

The Court explained that the law gives the offended spouse the sole discretion to decide whether to pursue criminal charges or keep the matter private, recognizing the personal nature of offenses involving marital infidelity.

Supreme Court: G.R. No. 277020 (Aurel Ann Chua-Chiba v. Jin Chiba and Michael Llona), May 19, 2025.

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court acquitted a man charged with economic abuse under the Anti-Violence Against Wome...
30/06/2026

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court acquitted a man charged with economic abuse under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) Act after the prosecution failed to establish that he was the child's father.

The Court explained that a legal obligation to provide child support arises only after filiation or paternity has been established. Without proof of paternity, no legal duty to provide support can be imposed.

The Court also emphasized that, to sustain a conviction for economic abuse under the law, it must likewise be proven that the refusal to provide support was intended to cause the woman mental or emotional suffering.

Section 5(i), Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004)
Supreme Court Decision, ### v. People, G.R. No. 262419, November 3, 2025.

The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated that courts are not bound by parental custody agreements when these do not serve t...
23/06/2026

The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated that courts are not bound by parental custody agreements when these do not serve the childโ€™s best interests.

The Court stressed that a petition for habeas corpus in custody cases is meant to determine who has rightful custody, not merely to secure a child's appearance in court. Trial courts must carefully consider the totality of circumstances and grant custody only if
(1) the petitioner has a legal right to custody;
(2) the child is being kept from them by the other party; and
(3) being with the petitioner is in the best interest of the child.

The SC held that compromise agreements between parents as to a childโ€™s custody are frowned upon. Courts should not simply approve custody agreements but must ensure that the childโ€™s rights and welfare are protected:

โ€œ[A childโ€™s rights] are not and should not be dependent solely on the wishes, much less the whims and caprices, of [their] parents. [Their] welfare should not be subject to the parentsโ€™ say-so or mutual agreement alone. Where, as in this case, the parents are already separated in fact, the courts must step in to determine in whose custody the child can better be assured the rights granted to [them] by law.โ€œ

Read the full text here
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-childs-best-interests-prevails-over-parental-custody-agreement/

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that acts creating a hostile and intimidating environment for a spouse may constitute โ€œ...
18/06/2026

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that acts creating a hostile and intimidating environment for a spouse may constitute โ€œgrossly abusive conductโ€ under the Family Code and may serve as a ground for legal separation.

While the Family Code does not allow absolute divorce, spouses may legally separate by order of a court without ending their marriage. Unlike a declaration that a marriage is void, a legal separation does not break the marital bond.

Unjustified absence from the marital home for decades may be considered as part of the totality of evidence that a perso...
12/06/2026

Unjustified absence from the marital home for decades may be considered as part of the totality of evidence that a person is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage.

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that hiding oneโ€™s homosexuality from a spouse can be considered fraud and may be used as a ...
10/06/2026

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that hiding oneโ€™s homosexuality from a spouse can be considered fraud and may be used as a ground to annul a marriage.

For a marriage to be valid, both parties must give their consent freely. Article 45 of the Family Code states that a marriage can be annulled if one partyโ€™s consent was obtained through fraud, as long as the couple did not continue living together after discovering the fraud. Article 46 further specifies that hiding oneโ€™s homosexuality or lesbianism from a spouse is considered fraud.

Read the full text here
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-hiding-ones-homosexuality-is-fraud-ground-for-annulment/

Address

2nd Floor, RFR Building, Arellano Street
Dagupan City
2400

Opening Hours

Monday 8am - 5pm
Tuesday 8am - 5pm
Wednesday 8am - 5pm
Thursday 8am - 5pm
Friday 8am - 5pm
Saturday 8am - 5pm

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Reyes Law Office - Dagupan City posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share