MANILA – The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that alleging in a criminal Information that psychological violence was committed through Facebook is sufficient to establish the use of information and communications technology (ICT) as a qualifying circumstance, allowing the imposition of a penalty one degree higher under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

In a resolution penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division affirmed with modification its Oct. 22, 2025 decision convicting an individual, identified only as XXX, of psychological violence against his former girlfriend, identified as AAA, for posting derogatory statements about her on Facebook.

The high court, however, increased the penalty after finding that the offense was committed through Facebook, a circumstance that was sufficiently alleged in the Information and established during trial.

The case stemmed from the relationship between XXX and AAA, who were together for three years and had a daughter. After AAA refused XXX’s marriage proposal and raised their child on her own, she later accused him of grabbing and groping her during a visit with their daughter, prompting her to block him on her social media accounts.

Years later, AAA’s siblings received a Facebook Messenger message from an account they recognized as belonging to XXX, accusing AAA of causing his mother to suffer a heart attack.

The following day, AAA learned that the same account had posted a public Facebook message calling her a “dirty woman” and an “animal,” while also threatening to assault her. Similar remarks were later posted in the comments section.

Fearing for her safety, AAA filed a complaint against XXX for violating Republic Act 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.

During the trial, the prosecution presented screenshots of the Facebook posts. AAA testified that she had originally created the account for XXX, although he had been the one using it. Her siblings also testified that the account belonged to XXX and that they had communicated with him through the same account.

XXX denied owning the account, claiming someone may have created a fake profile using his name and photograph. He also argued that he was working as a waiter when the posts were made and did not have access to his phone.

The Family Court and the Court of Appeals found XXX guilty, rejecting his denials. Both courts noted that he and his live-in partner were able to identify themselves in the account’s profile photo.

After the SC affirmed his conviction in 2025, XXX sought reconsideration, arguing that the use of his name and photograph on the Facebook account did not prove ownership and that the posts did not cause AAA emotional anguish.

The SC denied the motion with finality, ruling that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that XXX authored the Facebook posts.

The Court reiterated that ownership or control of a social media account may be established through several circumstances, including admission of ownership or authorship, being seen accessing the account or composing the post, information known only to the offender or a limited group of people, language consistent with the offender’s characteristics, records from internet service providers or social media platforms, forensic examination of devices, acts consistent with previous posts, or other evidence showing ownership, access, or authorship.

The SC emphasized that its finding was not based solely on the account bearing XXX’s name and photograph but on the totality of evidence presented during the trial.

The Court also ruled that all elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC Act were established, including the emotional anguish and public humiliation suffered by AAA because of the Facebook posts.

In increasing the penalty, the SC explained that Section 6 of Republic Act 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, requires a penalty one degree higher for crimes committed through ICT because such technology allows offenders to reach more victims, inflict greater harm, or evade liability.

The Court stressed that for the higher penalty to apply, the use of ICT must be properly alleged in the criminal Information and proven during trial. It clarified that while the term “ICT” need not be expressly stated, the Information must clearly inform the accused that the offense was committed using an ICT system.

In this case, the Information alleged that XXX posted the statements through his “Facebook Messenger Account… which was set to public view,” which the Court found sufficient to allege the use of ICT. It added that Facebook qualifies as an ICT system because it enables users to generate, send, receive, store, and process electronic data through computers, mobile phones, and similar devices.

With the qualifying circumstance established, the SC increased XXX’s sentence to imprisonment of six years and one day to 14 years, eight months, and one day. The Court also imposed a PHP100,000 fine and ordered him to undergo psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.