By Ade S. Fajardo
A man and his girlfriend had been in a relationship for three years. The romance ended when the woman became pregnant but refused to join the man in marriage. Probably realizing the man’s shortcomings by then, she decided to live with her parents.
The man reacted negatively. In one visit, the man suddenly grabbed and groped the woman. She then blocked him from her social media accounts, including Facebook.
After sometime, her siblings received a private message on Facebook from an account they were certain belonged to the man. A friend also received a message branding her an animal and unclean.
***
Citing psychological violence, the woman filed a complaint against the man for violation of Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC) Act.
The man’s defense was simple. He denied authorship and offered the possibility that someone else might have created the social media account that carried his identity. He claimed he could not have posted the photo on the account because he was working as a waiter in a restaurant at the time of the social media posting.
However, he admitted that he is the person in the profile photo.
***
During the trial, the prosecution presented printouts of the screenshot of the Facebook post.
The woman’s two siblings were also presented. They testified in court that they received messages from the man’s social media accounts.
The trial court found the man guilty of subjecting the woman to psychological violence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
***
In a decision penned by Justice Ramon Hernando, the Supreme Court noted that the man’s social media account bore his full name. The profile photo even showed him with his child with his live-in partner.
The Supreme Court said that the woman’s siblings also received messages consistently from the same account for a number of years. One message had the man requesting to visit his child on her birthday.
Since it was established that the man made the posts, and the woman suffered public ridicule thereby, the Supreme Court confirmed that all the elements of psychological violence under Section 5 (i) of RA 9262 were present.
***
The SC said there are several guideposts to show ownership or control of a social media account:
* There is admission of ownership or authorship.
* The perpetrator is seen accessing the account or composing the post.
***
The post contains information known only to the offender or a few people.
The language of the post is consistent with the offender’s characteristics.
The prosecution may also present 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.
***
The perpetrator may also be identified through acts consistent with previous posts.
The prosecution can also present other instances showing ownership, access or authorship.
This Supreme Court decision is significant as it is attuned to the times./WDJ