Online Psychological Abuse Under RA 9262: Higher Penalty When Committed via Social Media

The Supreme Court has affirmed that a former boyfriend who publicly posts demeaning and threatening statements against his ex-partner on Facebook can be held liable for psychological abuse under Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. In XXX v. People (G.R. No. 274842, 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 increased by one degree under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

The Facts of the Case

The petitioner and the private offended party (AAA) had a romantic relationship beginning in 2007 and had a common child. After they separated in 2013, the petitioner became increasingly jealous and possessive. AAA eventually blocked him on social media.

On May 15, 2019, a Facebook account bearing the petitioner's name and photo posted a public message in Kapampangan calling AAA an "animal," a "dirty woman," and an "ugly bewitched creature," and threatening to box her. The post was set to "public" view and gained reactions and comments. AAA testified that she feared for her life and safety, became depressed, suffered sleeplessness and anxiety, and could not work for several days.

The petitioner denied owning the Facebook account, claiming he was being impersonated. He also raised the defense of alibi, saying he was at work during the posting.

The Issue

The central issues were: (1) whether the petitioner's authorship of the Facebook post was proven beyond reasonable doubt; (2) whether the elements of psychological abuse under Section 5(i) of RA 9262 were established; and (3) whether the penalty should be increased because the offense was committed through ICT.

The Court's Ruling

Identity of the perpetrator. The Court rejected the petitioner's denial, holding that authorship of a social media post may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence. Here, the totality of circumstances pointed to the petitioner: the account used his name and photo; the account had previously sent private messages to AAA's sister asking permission to visit their child; the post referred to being blocked by someone with AAA's nickname; and the account's earlier posts drew reactions from people connected to the petitioner. These circumstances, taken together, engendered moral certainty of the petitioner's guilt.

Elements of psychological abuse. The Court reiterated the elements of the offense 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 has a sexual or dating relationship with the offender, or shares 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 Court held that the lone testimony of the offended party, if positive, categorical, and credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. AAA's testimony describing her fear, shame, and helplessness was credited by both the Family Court and the Court of Appeals. The Court also found a clear causal connection between the petitioner's post and AAA's suffering.

Higher penalty for ICT use. The Court ruled that Section 6 of RA 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012) mandates a penalty one degree higher when a crime is committed through ICT. Facebook, being an internet-based platform for social interaction and information sharing, qualifies as an ICT system.

The Court held that the Information sufficiently alleged the qualifying circumstance by stating that the petitioner posted the statements on his "Facebook Messenger Account" set to "public view." This was enough to apprise the petitioner of the charge against him.

Consequently, the Court increased the penalty from six months and one day of prision correccional to eight years and one day of prision mayor, to 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.

Practical Takeaways

• Public online rants can be criminal. Posting demeaning, threatening, or insulting statements about a former partner on social media, even without naming them, can constitute psychological abuse under RA 9262 if the victim is identifiable and suffers mental or emotional anguish.
• Denial is not enough. Disclaiming ownership of a social media account will not defeat a prosecution if circumstantial evidence—such as the account's history, content, and connections—points to the accused as the author.
• The victim's testimony can suffice. A credible, categorical account of the emotional suffering caused by the abuse is sufficient to sustain a conviction, even without corroborating witnesses.
• ICT use increases the penalty. When psychological abuse is committed through social media or other electronic means, the penalty is raised by one degree under RA 10175. The qualifying circumstance need only be alleged in ordinary language in the Information.
• Protective orders and remedies remain available. Victims may also avail of Barangay Protection Orders, Temporary Protection Orders, and Permanent Protection Orders under RA 9262.

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