Man convicted for threats gets longer jail time due to online rants

INQUIRER.net stock images Violence or intimidation against women and children, when compounded by posts on social media or other online means, is subjected to a higher degree of penalty. So went a ruling last month by the Supreme Court, regarding a petition for certiorari filed by a man from Angeles City, Pampanga, who sought to reverse his conviction for psychological abuse after he posted a rant laced with profanity and threats against his former partner. Article continues after this advertisement Instead of having his appeal granted, the petitioner’s move prompted the high court’s First Division to impose a harsher penalty extending his prison sentence from eight years to up to 14 years, or reclusion temporal. The court said his offense of violating Sec. 5(i) of Republic Act 9262, or the Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act, constituted the use of information and communications technology (ICT), a qualifying circumstance under the Cybercrime Prevention Act. The prison sentence was one degree higher than the initial penalty imposed when the petitioner was convicted for the same offense in 2022 by the Family Court. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals a year later and by the Supreme Court in 2025. The high court’s latest ruling also imposes a P100,000 fine. “This case lies at the intersection of two vital State policies: the protection of women and their children from various forms of violence and the deterrence of crimes and offenses committed through social media and other ICT systems,” read the 20-page decision dated June 26 and written by Associate Justice Ramon Hernando. Article continues after this advertisement The decision said further: “It illustrates how social media can be misused to facilitate psychological abuse and exacerbate the suffering and humiliation of the offended party. As such, the law mandates the imposition of a higher penalty in recognition of the greater and more far-reaching harm done when violence is inflicted through an ICT system.” The Supreme Court said the case is a “cautionary tale” for perpetrators of online abuse who think they can escape liability by merely disowning social media accounts that are subject to the violation. Article continues after this advertisement In the petitioner’s Facebook posts in 2019, he uttered derogatory and malicious statements against his former partner, calling her an “animal” and a “dirty woman” while threatening to assault her. The estranged couple has one child. Private messages The aggrieved partner said the petitioner’s remarks caused her “serious emotional and psychological torment,” including mental anguish, sleepless nights, anxiety and public ridicule. The Supreme Court said the elements of Sec. 5(i) of RA 9262 were “established beyond reasonable doubt.” The provision pertains to one of the crimes established by the law, which is “causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse.” In determining the ownership of the Facebook account in question, the high tribunal considered various circumstances prior to the threatening posts, including private messages in 2015 to the woman’s siblings asking permission to visit their child. The Supreme Court also gave weight to earlier rulings by the Family Court and the appellate court, which both found the woman’s testimony credible. “The court finds no cogent reason to disturb this,” the First Division said. “Moreover, the prosecution sufficiently established the nexus between the mental and emotional anguish suffered by [the victim] and the act of public ridicule and humiliation, through the subject Facebook post, as perpetrated by the petitioner,” it said. Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again. Your subscription has been successful. “Here, [the victim] would not have undergone such a traumatic and harrowing experience were it not for the subject Facebook post made by petitioner. Surely, any ordinary human being publicly threatened with serious harm and ridiculed as an ‘animal,’ ‘dirty woman’ and ‘ugly evil spirit’ would have felt the same.” —WITH A REPORT FROM FRANCES AGBAYANI, INQUIRER INTERN