Liked, shared, litigated
Abusers cannot expect leniency simply because their cruelty travels through Wi-Fi rather than a clenched fist.
Text size
Daily TribuneAbusers cannot expect leniency simply because their cruelty travels through Wi-Fi rather than a clenched fist.
Social media has become woven into the fabric of everyday life. Yet the very platforms that connect us can just as easily become tools of harassment and abuse. This double-edged nature has grown so pronounced that the law has had to catch up by crafting specific safeguards against harm inflicted online.
The recent ruling in XXX v. People of the Philippines (GR 274842) is a case in point. The Supreme Court held that psychological violence committed through Facebook warrants the imposition of a penalty one degree higher pursuant to Section 6 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act 10175).
Petitioner XXX and private complainant AAA were in a relationship for three years when AAA conceived their daughter. XXX proposed marriage, but AAA declined and instead raised their child while living with her parents. During one visit, XXX suddenly grabbed and groped AAA, prompting her to block him on Facebook.
Years later, AAA’s siblings received a private Facebook message from an account they recognized as XXX’s, insinuating that AAA was causing his mother to suffer a heart attack. The following day, AAA learned that the same account had publicly called her a dirty woman and an animal and had even threatened to box her if their paths crossed—insults that XXX likewise repeated in the comments section. Fearing for her safety, AAA filed a complaint for violation of Republic Act 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act.
During trial, XXX denied authoring the Facebook posts, claiming that someone had merely used his photograph to fabricate the account. He likewise argued that he could not have posted the messages because he was then working as a waiter without access to his phone. The Family Court and the Court of Appeals rejected these defenses, and the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction.
On motion for reconsideration, however, the Court went a step further by increasing the penalty. It explained that Section 6 of Republic Act 10175 requires the penalty to be raised by one degree whenever a crime is committed through information and communications technology (ICT). The rationale is straightforward: ICT enables offenders to evade liability more easily, reach a much wider audience and inflict greater harm on their victims. Facebook, the Court held, plainly qualifies as an ICT system because it allows users to generate, send, receive and store electronic data through computers or mobile devices.
Crucially, the Court also clarified that it is unnecessary for the Information to expressly use the statutory term “ICT.” It is enough that the Information describes the offense in ordinary and concise language sufficient to inform the accused of the nature of the charge. In this case, the allegation that XXX posted the message through his “Facebook Messenger Account … which was set to public view” adequately pleaded the use of ICT, and this was established during trial.
Accordingly, the Court increased the penalty by one degree—from prision mayor (six years and one day to 12 years) to reclusion temporal. XXX was thus sentenced to imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to 14 years, eight months and one day. The P100,000 fine and the order requiring him to undergo psychological counseling were likewise retained.
The ruling sends an unmistakable message: Abusers cannot expect leniency simply because their cruelty travels through Wi-Fi rather than a clenched fist. By recognizing social media as a genuine instrument of ICT-facilitated abuse, the Court has strengthened the reach of Republic Act 9262 and ensured that the law keeps pace with the realities of the digital age. In an era where a single click can spread humiliation to countless people in an instant, the law likewise ensures that accountability travels just as far.
