17/07/2026
๐๐ป๐๐๐น๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐๐ต๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฎ ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐๐ป๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ฏ๐ผ๐ผ๐ธ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ป ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐บ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ป ๐ฎ ๐๐๐๐ฉ๐๐๐ฅ ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฎ๐น๐๐ ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ฉ๐๐ช๐.
The Supreme Court has ruled that psychological violence under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (RA 9262) โ when inflicted through Facebook โ is committed through information and communications technology (ICT), and this warrants a higher penalty under Section 6 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
๐ช๐ต๐ฒ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐๐ผ๐'๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ธ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ท๐๐๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ ๐ฎ ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐บ, ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฎ ๐๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐ฑ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ ๐ฎ ๐ฉ๐๐ช๐ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป, ๐๐ฃ๐๐ฆ๐๐จ๐๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐ข๐ณ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ ๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ผ ๐ด๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ด๐ต ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐๐.
๐ Unit 2A, JC Velasco Bldg., Victoria Ave., Tunasan, Muntinlupa
(Landmark: 2F above TGP, building next to Alfamart, along Victoria Avenue, in front of Victoria Homes, south of Alabang entrance)
๐ +63 945-400-9983
โ๏ธ [email protected]
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BfgHinCDj/
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 ๐๐บ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ค๐ณ๐ช๐ฎ๐ฆ ๐๐ณ๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐๐ค๐ต ๐ฐ๐ง 2012.
In a Resolution penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SCโs 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 ๐๐ฏ๐ต๐ช-๐๐ช๐ฐ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ ๐๐จ๐ข๐ช๐ฏ๐ด๐ต ๐๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ณ ๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ญ๐ฅ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐๐ค๐ต ๐ฐ๐ง 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 ###โs and that they received messages from him through the same account.
Despite ###โs 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 ###โs Motion for Reconsideration, the SC held that ###โs authorship of the Facebook post was established beyond reasonable doubt, using the guideposts it established in its assailed Decision:
๐. ๐๐๐ฆ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ ๐จ๐ฐ๐ง๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ ๐จ๐ซ ๐๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ซ๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ;
๐. ๐๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฌ๐๐๐ง ๐๐๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ญ ๐จ๐ซ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ;
๐. ๐๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐๐ข๐ง๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ง๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ค๐ง๐จ๐ฐ๐ง ๐จ๐ง๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐จ๐๐๐๐ง๐๐๐ซ ๐จ๐ซ ๐ ๐๐๐ฐ ๐ฉ๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐;
๐. ๐๐๐ง๐ ๐ฎ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐จ๐๐๐๐ง๐๐๐ซโ๐ฌ ๐๐ก๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฌ;
๐. ๐๐๐๐จ๐ซ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ง๐๐ญ ๐ฌ๐๐ซ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐๐ซ, ๐ญ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ง๐ข๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐ฒ, ๐จ๐ซ ๐ฌ๐จ๐๐ข๐๐ฅ ๐ฆ๐๐๐ข๐ ๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐, ๐๐ง๐ ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ญ๐ฌ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ ๐๐๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ข๐ ๐๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฐ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฅ๐จ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐ฌ, ๐๐ง๐ ๐จ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ ๐๐ญ๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ฎ๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐ค๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐จ๐๐๐๐ง๐๐๐ซ;
๐. ๐๐๐ญ๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฏ๐ข๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ฌ; ๐จ๐ซ
๐. ๐๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ ๐ข๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ง๐๐๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฐ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐จ๐ฐ๐ง๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ, ๐๐๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ, ๐จ๐ซ ๐๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ซ๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ.
The authorship of the Facebook post and all the elements of psychological violence having been established, the SC said Section 6 of the ๐๐บ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ค๐ณ๐ช๐ฎ๐ฆ ๐๐ณ๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐๐ค๐ต ๐ฐ๐ง 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 Accountโฆ 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 PIOโs Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution
