SC imposes harsher penalty for online VAWC offenses

The Supreme Court has imposed a heavier prison sentence on a man convicted of committing psychological violence against his former girlfriend through social media, ruling that the use of information and communication technology warrants a higher penalty under the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

In a resolution made public on 16 July, the High Court affirmed the man's conviction for violating Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) Act of 2004, but increased his prison term after partially granting his motion for reconsideration.

While the Court earlier upheld the penalties imposed by the trial court and the Court of Appeals of six months and one day to eight years and one day, it ultimately modified the sentence to six years and one day of prision mayor to 14 years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal.

Writing for the Court, Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando said the use of information and communication technology in committing a crime constitutes a qualifying circumstance under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

"By virtue of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 10175, the use of an ICT in the commission of a crime or offense is a qualifying circumstance warranting the imposition of a higher penalty," the resolution stated.

The Court, however, emphasized that the qualifying circumstance must be specifically alleged in the criminal complaint or information, as required under the Rules of Court. Otherwise, it cannot be appreciated even if proven during trial.

According to the Supreme Court's Office of the Spokesperson, the case involved a couple who had been in a relationship for three years and had a daughter together.

After the woman rejected the man's marriage proposal because of problems in their relationship, he raised their child with the help of his parents.

During one visit to see their daughter, the man allegedly grabbed and groped the woman, prompting her to block him on Facebook and other social media platforms.

Years later, the woman's siblings received Facebook Messenger messages from an account they recognized as belonging to the man. The messages blamed the woman for causing his mother's heart attack.

The following day, the woman learned that the same account had posted a public Facebook message calling her a "dirty woman" and an "animal" and threatening to physically assault her. The insults were repeated in the comments section.

Fearing for her safety, the woman filed a complaint for violation of the Anti-VAWC Act.

The Regional Trial Court, acting as a Family Court, found the man guilty, a ruling later affirmed by the Court of Appeals and subsequently by the Supreme Court.

The High Court also upheld the P100,000 fine imposed by the lower courts and ordered the offender to undergo psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

In seeking reconsideration, the man argued that the mere appearance of his name and photograph on the Facebook account was insufficient to prove that he authored the posts.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument, ruling that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that he controlled the account and authored the posts.

The Court also reiterated the factors that may be considered in proving ownership or control of a social media account, including admissions of authorship, eyewitness accounts of account access, information known only to the accused, writing style, records from internet service providers or social media platforms, digital forensic evidence, patterns consistent with previous posts, and other circumstances linking the account to the offender.