The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that psychological violence committed against women and children through the use of social media that was sufficiently alleged in the complaint and proven in court should be imposed a higher penalty.

In a resolution made public last July 16, the SC affirmed its earlier ruling but modified and upgraded the penalty imposed on a man for inflicting psychological violence against his former girlfriend through the use of social media.

The SC had earlier affirmed the rulings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals which convicted a man of violation of Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) Act of 2004, and sentenced him to a jail term ranging from six months and one day (prision correccional) to eight years and one day (prision mayor).

However, after resolving the motion for reconsideration filed by the man, the SC increased the imprisonment imposed on him to six years and one day (prision mayor) to 14 years, eight months, and one day (reclusion temporal).

The resolution written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando stated that “by virtue of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012), the use of an ICT (Information and Communication Technology) in the commission of a crime or offense is a qualifying circumstance warranting the imposition of a higher penalty.”

“As such, it must be sufficiently alleged in the criminal complaint or information, as required under Rule 110, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, as amended. Otherwise, it cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance even if proved during trial,” it also stated.

A summary of the case records issued by the SC’s Office of the Spokesperson stated that the man and his girlfriend were in a relationship for three years when she became pregnant.

He offered her marriage, but she refused because of their problems. She raised their daughter alone and lived with her parents.

During one visit to their daughter, the man suddenly grabbed and groped the woman. Traumatized, she blocked him from her social media accounts, including Facebook.

Years later, the woman’s siblings received a private message on Facebook Messenger from an account they knew belonged to the man. In the message, he insinuated that the woman was causing his mother a heart attack.

The next day, the woman learned from a friend that the same account 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.

Fearing for her safety, the woman filed a complaint against the man for violations of RA 9262.

During trial, printouts of the screenshot of the Facebook post were presented. The woman admitted she created the account long ago for the man and said he had been using it. Her two siblings testified that the account belonged to the man and that they received messages from him through the same account.

The man denied owning the account but identified the persons in the profile photo as himself and one of his children with his current live-in partner. He claimed someone might have used his photo to create a fake account. He also argued he could not have made the post because he was working as a waiter at a restaurant at the time, without access to his phone.

The regional trial court (RTC) acting as Family Court and the CA found him guilty.

When the case reached the SC, the High Court affirmed the conviction of man and the penalty imposed by the CA which upheld that jail term meted out by the RTC. Also affirmed were the fine of P100,000, and psychological counselling or psychiatric treatment of the man.

The man filed a motion to reconsider the SC’s decision. He claimed that the mere use of his name and photo on the Facebook account was insufficient to establish that the account belonged to him.

In denying the motion for reconsideration with finality, the SC ruled that the man’s authorship of the Facebook post was established beyond reasonable doubt.

The SC reiterated the guideposts to establish who owns or controls a social media account: admission of ownership or authorship; being seen accessing the account or composing the post; containing information known only to the offender or a few people; language consistent with the offender’s characteristics; records from the internet service provider, telecommunications company, or social media site, and results from device forensic analysis showing geolocation features, and other attributes linking the account to the offender; acts consistent with previous posts; other instances showing ownership, access, or authorship.

The SC pointed out that its conclusion that the man wrote the Facebook post was not based solely on the fact that the Facebook account used his photo and name. It explained that its finding was instead supported by several circumstances pointing to the man as the author of the Facebook post.

The SC also said:

“This case lies at the intersection of two vital State policies: the protection of women and their children from various forms of violence, and the deterrence of crimes and offenses committed through social media and other ICT systems.

“It illustrates how social media can be misused to facilitate psychological abuse and exacerbate the suffering and humiliation of the offended party. As such, the law mandates the imposition of a higher penalty in recognition of the greater and more far-reaching harm done when violence is inflicted through an ICT system.

“It also serves as a warning to perpetrators of online violence that they cannot evade liability by simply disclaiming ownership of a social media account, and an assurance to the innocent that legal safeguards exist against fake or dummy accounts intended to falsely incriminate them.

“More significantly, it affirms that violence against women and children, whether committed through electronic means or otherwise, has no place in our society.”