Dear Atty. Angela,

My ex-boyfriend and I were in a relationship for 3 years when I became pregnant but we eventually separated because of his infidelity. I raised our son by myself but I allowed him to visit my house from time to time. One day, he was drunk and insisted to go to my house where he harassed me. He was forcing me to get back together with him but I refused. A week after, he posted false and damaging statements against me on Facebook — calling me a dirty woman and an animal. He said I was unfit to be a mother, sleeping with any guy I meet. He repeated these insults to the comments of his post which are all public. He is friends with my family members and we share the friends as well. When confronted, he denied owning the account but everyone knows it is his. What case can I file against him?

Agatha

Dear Agatha,

You can file a complaint against your ex-boyfriend for Psychological Violence under RA 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (Anti-VAWC Act).

RA 9262 protects women who are or were in an intimate relationship with the offender. Section 5(i) of RA 9262 penalizes acts that cause mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule, or humiliation, including verbal and emotional abuse. His drunk, coercive visitation together with the humiliating online posts clearly fall under psychological and emotional abuse.

With respect to the authorship of the Facebook post, in the case of XXX v. People, G.R. No. 274842 (29 June 2026), the Supreme Court reiterated the guideposts to establish who owns or controls a social media account:

1.Admission of ownership or authorship;

2.Being seen accessing the account or composing the post;

3.Containing information known only to the offender or a few people;

4.Language consistent with the offender’s characteristics;

5.Records from the internet service provider, telecommunications company, or social media site, and results from device forensic analysis showing geolocation features, and other attributes linking the account to the offender;

6. Acts consistent with previous posts; or

7. Other instances showing ownership, access, or authorship.

Here, the SC explained its conclusion that XXX wrote the Facebook post was not based solely on the fact that the Facebook account used his photo and name. It explained that its finding was instead supported by several circumstances pointing to XXX as the author of the Facebook post.

In addition, the Court resolved to impose a penalty higher by one degree where it said that Section 6 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 mandates the imposition of a penalty higher by one degree for crimes and offenses committed using Information Communications Technology (ICT). It noted that the law imposes a higher penalty because the use of ICT can enable offenders to evade liability, reach more victims, or cause greater harm.

Atty. Angela Antonio