The Supreme Court denied with finality a Motion for Reconsideration and affirmed the conviction of a man found guilty of violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, for psychologically abusing his former partner through a Facebook post. The Court modified only the penalty of imprisonment imposed.
Because the case involves violence against a woman, the identities of the parties are withheld and referred to by initials in accordance with the law and Supreme Court rules.
The Case
XXX was charged with violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262. According to the Information, on or about May 15, 2019, XXX, the former boyfriend of the complainant AAA, subjected her to psychological abuse by posting malicious, offending, injuring and threatening words on his Facebook Messenger account, which was set to public view.
Based on the prosecution's evidence, AAA had a sexual relationship with XXX. They became a couple in 2007, broke up in 2009, reconciled the same year, and in 2010 AAA gave birth to their common child, DDD. AAA rejected XXX's marriage proposal to finish her studies. She described XXX as growing more jealous and possessive, discouraging her from school activities, accusing her of entertaining suitors, and ridiculing her abilities and looks. AAA finally broke up with him in October 2013.
After the separation, XXX was allowed to occasionally visit their daughter, but he grabbed and groped AAA during one visit, prompting her mother to ban him from their house. On May 14, 2019, AAA's siblings BBB and CCC separately received private messages from a Facebook account. The next day, May 15, 2019, at 11:47 p.m., the subject Facebook account posted a statement in Kapampangan whose privacy setting was set to public. It gained several reactions and comments.
AAA testified that she feared for her life and safety, got depressed, and could not work for a few days. She filed criminal complaints against XXX for violation of Republic Act No. 9262, cyber libel, and grave threats. The complaints for cyber libel and grave threats were dismissed during preliminary investigation. A Barangay Protection Order, a Temporary Protection Order, and a Permanent Protection Order were issued in favor of AAA.
XXX pleaded not guilty during arraignment before the Family Court. He denied ownership of the subject Facebook account and authorship of the post, insinuating that AAA created the account to falsely incriminate him. He raised the defense of alibi, claiming that on May 15, 2019, he was working as a waiter with a shift from 4:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., and that he left his cellphone in his bag due to a company policy prohibiting cellphone use while on duty.
The Issue
The matter before the Court was whether to grant XXX's Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision dated October 22, 2025 finding him guilty of violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, and whether the penalty imposed was correct.
The Ruling
The Court ruled: "FOR THESE REASONS, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY. The Decision dated October 22, 2025 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the penalty of imprisonment imposed."
The Court found petitioner XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 and sentenced him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years, eight months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Petitioner was also ordered to pay a fine of PHP 100,000.00, and directed to undergo mandatory psychological counselling or psychiatric treatment and report his compliance to the court of origin within 15 days after completion. The Court ordered that no further pleadings shall be entertained and that entry of judgment be issued immediately.
By the Numbers
- G.R. No. 274842
- Offense date: on or about May 15, 2019
- Subject Facebook post: May 15, 2019 at 11:47 p.m.
- Private messages received by siblings: May 14, 2019
- Couple in 2007; broke up in 2009; child born in 2010; final breakup in October 2013
- Fine: PHP 100,000.00
- Prison term: six years and one day of prision mayor (minimum) to 14 years, eight months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal (maximum)
- Compliance report: within 15 days after completion of counselling or treatment
The Court's Reasoning
The Court explained that the penalty range was affected by Section 6 of Republic Act No. 10175. Following the rules on penalties, the minimum term was taken from the penalty next lower, and the maximum from what could be properly imposed under the law, being reclusion temporal in its medium period, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
On the fine, the Court noted that the last paragraph of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9262 imposes a fine of not less than PHP 100,000.00 but not more than PHP 300,000.00, and that following Article 75 of the Revised Penal Code, one degree is equivalent to one-fourth of the maximum, raising the maximum to PHP 375,000.00 while keeping the minimum unchanged. The Court retained the fine of PHP 100,000.00 as it falls within the range.
In its final note, the Court stated that the case lies at the intersection of two State policies: the protection of women and children from violence, and the deterrence of crimes committed through social media and other ICT systems. It said the law mandates a higher penalty in recognition of the greater harm done when violence is inflicted through an ICT system, and that perpetrators cannot evade liability by simply disclaiming ownership of a social media account. The Court affirmed that violence against women and children, whether committed through electronic means or otherwise, has no place in our society.
Source: Supreme Court Resolution, G.R. No. 274842.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.