Dumayac and Gonzales Law Offices

Dumayac and Gonzales Law Offices Contact information, map and directions, contact form, opening hours, services, ratings, photos, videos and announcements from Dumayac and Gonzales Law Offices, Lawyer & Law Firm, Unit 4/2nd Floor Alexeber Building Mohon, Talisay.

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

06/05/2026

The has acquitted a man charged with violence against women and their children, or VAWC, for allegedly refusing to provide financial support to a child not proven to be his, emphasizing that a legal duty to provide financial support arises only after filiation or paternity has been established.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SCโ€™s Third Division reversed the rulings of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, which found the accused guilty of economic abuse under Republic Act 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 (๐˜ˆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ช-๐˜๐˜ˆ๐˜ž๐˜Š ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ต).

The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman against her former boyfriend, accusing him of refusing to provide financial support for her child.

The accused consistently denied he was the father, claiming that the child was born only eight months after they last had sexual relations.

During trial, the woman presented the childโ€™s birth certificate as evidence. However, the portion indicating the fatherโ€™s name, was marked "๐˜•/๐˜ˆ" and left unsigned.

The woman also admitted in court that the accused refused to give financial support because he doubted that he was the childโ€™s father.

In reversing the accusedโ€™s conviction, the SC explained that to convict a person for economic abuse under Section 5(i) of the ๐˜ˆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ช-๐˜๐˜ˆ๐˜ž๐˜Š ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ต, the prosecution must show the following: (1) the victim is a woman and/or her child; (2) the woman is the offenderโ€™s wife or partner, or someone with whom the offender has a common child; (3) the offender refused to give financial support due; and (4) the refusal was intended to cause mental or emotional suffering.

In this case, the SC ruled that the prosecution failed to prove two essential elements: that the accused and the woman share a common child, and that the refusal to provide support was done to inflict psychological harm.

As the accusedโ€™s paternity was not proven in this case, no legal obligation to provide support could be imposed.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164663.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=164655.

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

21/04/2026

The (SC) has affirmed its previous ruling that cyber libel prescribes one year from the time it is discovered, holding that โ€œcyber libelโ€ is not a new crime but a form of โ€œlibelโ€ under Art. 355 of the ๐˜™๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ช๐˜ด๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ ๐˜—๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ข๐˜ญ ๐˜Š๐˜ฐ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ that is committed through a computer system or other similar means.

In a Resolution written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC ๐˜Œ๐˜ฏ ๐˜‰๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ค denied the separate motions for reconsideration filed by Berteni Cataluรฑa Causing and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

In December 2020, Cotabato Second District Representative Ferdinand L. Hernandez filed a cyber libel complaint with the prosecutor against Causing related to Facebook posts accusing Hernandez of pocketing over PHP 200 million in relief goods for Marawi victims. Hernandez stated he discovered the posts on February 4 and April 29, 2019.

Informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Causing in May 2021. He filed a motion to quash the Informations, arguing that they were already time-barred under the RPC because more than one year had passed since the posts were uploaded.

The RTC denied the motion, ruling that cyber libel prescribes in 12 years under ๐˜™๐˜ฆ๐˜ฑ๐˜ถ๐˜ฃ๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ค ๐˜ˆ๐˜ค๐˜ต ๐˜•๐˜ฐ. (๐˜™๐˜ˆ) 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.

Causing appealed to the SC, which clarified that the prescriptive period for cyber libel is one year from the date of discovery, consistent with traditional libel under the RPC. The Court rejected Causingโ€™s motion to quash the Informations due to insufficient proof that the offense had already prescribed, highlighting that he can present evidence during the trial at the RTC.

Both the OSG and Causing filed separate partial motions for reconsideration.

The OSG argued that the one-year prescriptive period for traditional libel under the RPC should not apply to cyber libel. Instead, it should be 15 years under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, as previously decided by the Supreme Court through an unsigned resolution in Tolentino v. People.

Causing, on the other hand, argued that the prescription for cyber libel should start from the publication date rather than from discovery. He contended that online posts are more widespread than traditional forms of publication. If the discovery rule is applied, cyber libel charges could be filed several years after the post was made, as long as the offended party discovered it later.

The SC rejected both arguments.

Under the RPC, written libel prescribes in one year. There is no law that excludes cyber libel from this one-year period, and Congress has consistently treated libel as having a shorter prescriptive period than other crimes, even when penalties are increased.

The SC reiterated that cyber libel is not a separate crime, but rather libel committed through a computer system. The fact that the Cybercrime Prevention Act imposes a higher penalty for cyber libel does not imply that its prescriptive period should be extended beyond that of traditional libel.

The SC added that when laws on the prescription of crimes are unclear, they must be interpreted in favor of the accused. Since the RPC sets a one-year prescriptive period for cyber libel, it prevails over the 15-year period set in the case of Tolentino v. People, which is an unsigned resolution.

The SC also affirmed that prescription begins upon discovery of the offense, not upon publication. The law clearly states that prescription runs from the time the crime is discovered by the offended party or the authorities.

Seven other Justices joined Justice Inting in the majority. They are:
โ€ข Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo
โ€ข Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen
โ€ข Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa
โ€ข Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda
โ€ข Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan
โ€ข Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez
โ€ข Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh

In his Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen argued that the one-year prescription period should apply only to libel cases against private individuals. He added that libel against public figures should be decriminalized, as punishing comments and criticisms directed at public officials discourages free and uninhibited discussion about how those in public office conduct themselves.

In his Concurring Opinion, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa stressed that the prescriptive period for libel has always been fixed at one or two years, never at 10 or more years.

Meanwhile, six other Justices joined Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr. in his dissent:
โ€ข Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando
โ€ข Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier
โ€ข Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario
โ€ข Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez
โ€ข Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao
โ€ข Associate Justice Raul B. Villanueva

In his Concurring and Dissenting opinion, Justice Kho, Jr. agreed with the majority that unsigned resolutions do not lay down doctrines of law but disagreed on the prescriptive period for cyber libel. Since cyber libel is committed through computer systems and is punishable under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, it is a separate crime from libel and the one-year prescriptive period for libel does not apply.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163671

Read the full text of the Resolution at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163636

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163642

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-admin/post.php?p=163650

Read the Concurring and Dissenting OpinionOpinion of Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr. at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=163661

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

Opening soon: A new chapter in legal excellence.๐——๐˜‚๐—บ๐—ฎ๐˜†๐—ฎ๐—ฐ ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—š๐—ผ๐—ป๐˜‡๐—ฎ๐—น๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐—Ÿ๐—ฎ๐˜„ ๐—ข๐—ณ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐Ÿข ๐˜œ๐˜ฏ๐˜ช๐˜ต 4 / 2๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜๐˜ญ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ ๐˜ˆ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜น๐˜ฆ๐˜ฃ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ ๐˜‰๐˜ถ๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ฅ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜จ (...
25/03/2026

Opening soon: A new chapter in legal excellence.

๐——๐˜‚๐—บ๐—ฎ๐˜†๐—ฎ๐—ฐ ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—š๐—ผ๐—ป๐˜‡๐—ฎ๐—น๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐—Ÿ๐—ฎ๐˜„ ๐—ข๐—ณ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ฒ๐˜€
๐Ÿข ๐˜œ๐˜ฏ๐˜ช๐˜ต 4 / 2๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ ๐˜๐˜ญ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ ๐˜ˆ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜น๐˜ฆ๐˜ฃ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ ๐˜‰๐˜ถ๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ฅ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜จ (๐˜•๐˜ฆ๐˜ข๐˜ณ ๐˜‰๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ๐˜น) ๐˜”๐˜ฐ๐˜ฉ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜›๐˜ข๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ด๐˜ข๐˜บ ๐˜Š๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜บ ๐˜Š๐˜ฆ๐˜ฃ๐˜ถ 6045
๐Ÿ“ž (๐ŸŽ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ) ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ–๐Ÿ’-๐Ÿ๐Ÿ’๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ• / +๐Ÿ”๐Ÿ‘ ๐Ÿ—๐Ÿ๐Ÿ• ๐Ÿ–๐ŸŽ๐ŸŽ ๐Ÿ—๐ŸŽ๐Ÿ”๐Ÿ”

Address

Unit 4/2nd Floor Alexeber Building Mohon
Talisay
6045

Opening Hours

Monday 8am - 5pm
Tuesday 8am - 5pm
Wednesday 8am - 5pm
Thursday 8am - 5pm
Friday 8am - 5pm
Saturday 8am - 12pm

Website

Alerts

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

Shortcuts

Share