Perpetrators who inflict psychological harm on women and children via social media networks will face more severe punishments, provided the utilization of information and communication technology (ICT) is explicitly detailed in the formal charge and substantiated during legal proceedings, the Supreme Court (SC) has decreed.
In a newly published resolution dated July 16, the high tribunal sustained a prior ruling that found a man guilty of violating Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) Act of 2004. However, the judiciary scaled up his prison sentence after confirming that the infraction was executed through digital media platforms.
Initially, the SC had backed the verdicts of the lower court and the Court of Appeals (CA), which handed the perpetrator a prison sentence spanning six months and one day of prision correccional to eight years and one day of prision mayor. Yet, upon evaluating his motion for reconsideration, the magistrate modified the penalty upward to a span of six years and one day of prision mayor to 14 years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal.
Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the author of the resolution, clarified that utilizing modern tech to execute an offense serves as an aggravating factor under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
“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.”
The high court’s resolution additionally underscored the procedural necessity for prosecutors to clearly articulate these specific dynamics in the initial criminal charges.
“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.
According to a case summary provided by the SC Office of the Spokesperson, the defendant and the victim shared a three-year relationship before she conceived a child. Even though he asked for her hand in marriage, the woman declined due to turbulence in their partnership. She subsequently brought up their daughter independently while residing with her parents.
Case archives reveal that during a routine visit to see their child, the man purportedly grabbed and fondled the woman. Deeply affected by the encounter, she cut off all contact with him across her social networks, including Facebook.
Years later, the woman’s siblings received a communication via Facebook Messenger from a profile they identified as belonging to the man. Within the message, he alleged that the woman triggered a heart attack suffered by his mother.
The next day, an acquaintance alerted the woman that the exact same Facebook profile had published public posts branding her an animal and a dirty woman, alongside threats of physical violence if they ever met. Analogous insults were allegedly mirrored throughout the comments section of the post.
Terrified for her personal safety, the woman initiated legal action against the man under the protections of the VAWC law.
During the litigation, screenshots of the Facebook messages and status updates were logged as evidence. The victim testified that she had initially set up the digital account for the man years prior and that he maintained possession of it. Her siblings similarly confirmed they had conversed with him through that specific profile.
For his defense, the accused denied owning the digital profile, despite conceding that the main display photo featured himself alongside a child from his current partner. He alleged that an unidentified individual could have co-opted his image to launch a fraudulent account, and maintained he could not have generated the messages because he was on duty as a restaurant server at the time and lacked access to his cellular device.
Both the Regional Trial Court, functioning as a Family Court, and the Court of Appeals reached a guilty verdict. When the litigation climbed to the Supreme Court, the initial conviction, a ₱100,000 monetary penalty, and a mandate forcing him to complete psychiatric care or psychological counseling were all sustained.
The man subsequently sought a reversal of the judgment, asserting that the presence of his identity and picture on the Facebook profile failed to definitively prove his ownership of the digital account.
In decisively turning down his final appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that the body of proof established beyond reasonable doubt that he was the true creator of the online posts.
The High Court reemphasized multiple elements that judges can evaluate when validating the ownership or oversight of online profiles. These metrics encompass direct acknowledgments of ownership, eyewitnesses who observed the defendant utilizing the account or drafting posts, information restricted to the perpetrator or a tight-knit circle, distinct linguistic styles typical of the defendant, data logs provided by internet or telecom firms, digital forensics tying electronic hardware to the account, and alternative situational clues indicating creation or administration.
The magistrate stressed that its conclusion did not depend merely on the deployment of the man’s identity and visual likeness, but rested upon an accumulation of distinct pieces of proof that pointed uniformly to him as the publisher.
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.”