Proving Control Online: New Supreme Court Guidelineson Social MediaAccounts In Criminal Litigation

Digital footprints matter. The Supreme Court has outlined how prosecutors and defense teams can establish social media account ownership or access and authorship of a social media post or private message. Here's what you need to know.

• Social media account ownership or access and ownership of a social media post or private message may be established through direct and circumstantial evidence.
• vidence can include admissions, observed actions, unique language patterns, and forensic reports from internet service providers, social media platforms, or device examinations.
• Technical evidence (e.g., geolocation, device history) is helpful but not indispensable? ownership or authorship can still be proven without it.

On October 22,2025,the Supreme Court,inXXX v. People, G.R. No.274842,established guidelines for provingauthorship or control over a social media account in criminal cases where the crime is committed through social media.

The case arose after acertain XXX was charged before the Family Court with aviolation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No.
9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. It was alleged that XXX committed psychological abuse on his former girlfriend AAA when he posted malicious, offending, injuring, and threatening words against AAA on his Facebook account.

According to the prosecution, XXX had created a Facebook account, which he then used to post the offensive language in a Facebook post and its comments, both of which were set to ?public.? As a result of the incident, AAA could not go to work for a few days as she felt anxious and was embarrassed. In his defense, XXX denied writing the Facebook post, claiming that he was at work at the time the Facebook post was made and that his employer had a strict company policy prohibiting him from using his cellphone while on duty.

The Family Court convicted XXX of the crime charged after it found that all elements of the violation were established beyond reasonable doubt. Regarding the ownership of the subject Facebook account, the Family Court held that his defense of denial was weak and that he was positively identified in the profile picture of the subject Facebook account. Acting on appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Family Court and gave greater weight to the testimony of AAA and her witnesses.

Before the Supreme Court, XXX argues that there is reasonable doubt as to his identification as the author of the subject Facebook post, which entitles him to an acquittal.

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and likewise convicted XXX of the crime.

It took discretionary judicial notice of the fact that in the Philippines, a Facebook account can be easily created by any person claiming to be at least 13 years of age who has an email address or mobile phone number. Given the ease by which a Facebook account can be created, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the platform is susceptible to the proliferation of fake or dummy accounts and can also be utilized to falsely incriminate people and facilitate the commission of crimes.

In view of the above, the Supreme Court provided guideposts in establishing the fact of ownership or of access to a social media account, in the context of crimes and offenses committed through social media. For purposes of establishing beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the perpetrator of the crime or offense committed through social media, the fact of social media account ownership or access, and the fact of authorship of a social media post or private message, may be established by direct or circumstantial evidence, including but not limited to the following:

1. The perpetrator admits ownership of or access to the social media account or admits authorship of the social media post or private message.
2. The perpetrator is seen accessing or using the social media account, or is seen composing, posting or sending the social media post or private message.
3. The social media post or private message contains information known only to the perpetrator or a few people, or that only the perpetrator could be expected to say or know.
4. The perpetrator. posts or communicates using the social media account consistent with a unique manner, language pattern, or other distinctive characteristics indicating their authorship of the post or communication.
5. The records of the 'Internet service provider or telecommunications company, the records of a social media site, geolocation features, the results from an examination of the search history or hard drive of the perpetrator's device, or a social media forensics authorship attribution report show that: (a) the social media account is owned or accessed by the perpetrator; (b) the social media account is connected to the perpetrator's email address, mobile number, or other social media accounts; or (c) the social media post or private message originated! from the perpetrator's computer, laptop, mobile phone or similar device, under circumstances in which it is reasonable to believe that only the perpetrator would have had access to such device. In no case, however; should the foregoing records, geolocation features, search history or hard drive examination results, or investigation reports be indispensable in establishing the fact of social media account ownership or access; or the fact of authorship of a social media post or private message.
6. The perpetrator acts in such a manner consistent with the post or private message previously or contemporaneously posted or sent through the social media account.
7. Other pieces of evidence showing that the perpetrator· is the owner of or has access to the social media account, or that the perpetrator is the author of the social media post or private message.

In this case, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that XXX was the perpetrator of the offense, based on the following circumstances:

1. The subject Facebook account used XXX?s full name as account name and his photo as the profile picture.
2. One of the witnesses presented by AAA testified that she knows the subject Facebook account to be owned by XXX after he had previously messaged her using the said account.
3. The subject Facebook post contained statements that XXX could be expected to say and know as it referred to AAA by her nickname that is known only to her friends and family members.
4. The existence of an earlier post made by the subject Facebook account indicates that the account was not a mere dummy account created for the sole purpose of incriminating XXX. Its posts were also reacted to by XXX?s current live-in partner.

Considering the above, the Supreme Court held that the totality of the circumstances led to no other reasonable and logical conclusion that XXX was indeed the author of the subject Facebook post. XXX?s defenses of denial and alibi were held to be unsubstantiated by the evidence and his allegation that it was AAA who made the account herself to be contrary to reason and common human experience.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that all the elements of a violation of Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 were established beyond a reasonable doubt. It is undisputed that AAA had a dating or sexual relationship and a common child with XXX, and that she suffered mental or emotional anguish caused by public ridicule or humiliation made by XXX through the subject Facebook post. As a result, XXX was imposed the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one day to eight years and one day, a fine of PhP100,000.00, and mandatory psychological counselling or psychiatric treatment.