Online Psychological Abuse and Higher Penalties: Demaala v. Sandiganbayan

The Supreme Court recently affirmed that posting threatening and demeaning statements on Facebook can constitute psychological abuse under Republic Act No. 9262 (the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004). In a Resolution dated June 29, 2026, the Court also ruled that because the offense was committed through social media—an information and communications technology (ICT) system—the penalty must be raised by one degree under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

The case originated from a May 2019 Facebook post by a man identified only as "XXX," directed at his former girlfriend, "AAA." The post, written in Kapampangan and set to public view, called AAA an "animal," a "dirty woman," and an "ugly bewitched creature," and threatened to box her. AAA testified that she suffered sleeplessness, anxiety, fear, and shame, and could not work for several days.

The Issue: Who Authored the Facebook Post?

XXX denied owning the Facebook account or authoring the post, suggesting that AAA herself created a dummy account to falsely incriminate him. He also pointed out that AAA's name was not mentioned in the post.

The Court rejected these defenses. It laid down guidelines for establishing social media account ownership and authorship of posts through direct or circumstantial evidence. These include admissions by the perpetrator, being seen using the account, posts containing information only the perpetrator would know, distinctive language patterns, and records from internet service providers or social media sites.

Applying these guidelines, the Court considered the totality of circumstances: the account used XXX's full name and his photo with his child; the account had sent private messages four years earlier asking permission to visit his daughter; the post referred to being blocked by someone with AAA's nickname; and the account's earlier posts drew reactions from people connected to XXX. The Court found these circumstances, woven together, engendered moral certainty that XXX authored the post.

The Elements of Psychological Abuse

The Court reiterated the four elements of psychological abuse under Section 5(i) of RA 9262: (1) the offended party is a woman or her child; (2) the woman is the wife, former wife, or a woman with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child; (3) the offender causes mental or emotional anguish; and (4) the anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, or similar acts.

The first two elements were undisputed. On the third and fourth, the Court held that the lone testimony of the offended party, if positive, categorical, and credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The trial court and the Court of Appeals both found AAA's testimony credible.

Why the Penalty Was Increased

Although the Court denied XXX's motion for reconsideration, it modified the penalty. The Court ruled that both the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in not applying Section 6 of Republic Act No. 10175 (the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012), which provides that crimes committed through ICT shall be penalized one degree higher.

The Court held that Facebook is an ICT system—an internet-based platform for generating, sending, receiving, and storing information through electronic means. Since the Information alleged that XXX posted the statements on his "Facebook Messenger Account" set to "public view," this sufficiently pleaded the qualifying circumstance of using ICT, even without using the exact term "ICT."

The penalty for psychological violence under Section 5(i) of RA 9262 is prision mayor. Raised by one degree, the penalty became reclusion temporal. The Court imposed an indeterminate sentence of six years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The fine of PHP 100,000.00 was retained, and XXX was ordered to undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

Practical Takeaways

• Social media posts can be crimes. Publicly posting threatening, demeaning, or humiliating statements about a former partner can constitute psychological abuse under RA 9262.
• Denial is not enough. Disclaiming ownership of a social media account will not defeat a prosecution if circumstantial evidence—account details, prior messages, distinctive language, and reactions from known persons—points to the accused as the author.
• The victim's testimony matters. A credible, categorical account of mental and emotional anguish can sustain a conviction, even without corroborating witnesses.
• Using ICT raises the penalty. When an offense under RA 9262 is committed through social media or other ICT systems, the penalty is increased by one degree under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
• Qualifying circumstances must be alleged. For the higher penalty to apply, the Information must sufficiently allege the use of ICT, though it need not use the exact statutory term.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.