SC releases parameters for social media identity verification

Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!

Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.

Visit Suniway.ph to learn

December 28, 2025 | 12:00am

MANILA, Philippines — In a criminal case, how can an individual be proven as the account owner/holder of a social media account? According to the Supreme Court (SC), there are several ways.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the SC’s First Division affirmed the conviction of an individual (XXX) for committing psychological violence against his former girlfriend (AAA) by posting derogatory statements about her on Facebook.

The case stemmed from a Facebook post in Kapampangan calling AAA a dirty woman and an animal, with the author of the post threatening to box AAA when he sees her. The insults were repeated by the author in the comments section of the post, which was public.

The SC said that in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove not only the elements of the crime but also the identity of the offender.

It explained that for crimes committed through social media platforms, such as Facebook, the basic features of the platform must be considered.

The SC acknowledged that Facebook accounts can easily be created by anyone claiming to be at least 13 years old with an email address or mobile number. Once created, the user can add friends, exchange private messages and post statements, photos or videos visible to others, depending on the user’s privacy settings.

Because of this, dummy accounts are rampant, enabling the spread of disinformation, identity theft and other crimes, the SC noted.

To prove the ownership or control of a social media account, the SC enumerated several parameters. These include the individual’s admission of ownership of the account or authorship of a particular social media post; an individual being seen accessing the account or composing the post; the post containing information known only to the offender or a few people; language consistent with the offender’s characteristics; records from the internet service provider, telecommunications company or social media site; results from device forensic analysis showing geolocation features and other attributes linking the account to the offender; acts consistent with previous posts or other instances showing ownership, access or authorship.

In upholding XXX’s conviction by the Family Court and the Court of Appeals, the SC said there were several factors that proved he wrote the Facebook post against AAA – the account name bore his full name and the profile photo showed him with his child from his current live-in partner.

AAA’s sister had also received messages from the same account for years. The messages were sent under circumstances pointing to XXX as the user, such as his request to visit his daughter with AAA on her birthday.

The SC said the Facebook post also contained statements XXX was expected to know, such as AAA’s nickname and the fact that he had been blocked by her. Reactions and comments further showed the account was not a dummy.

The SC rejected XXX’s claim that he was busy working and had no access to his phone at the time, saying this did not prove he had no opportunity to use his phone or any other device to access Facebook.

Having established that XXX made the post, the SC ruled that all the elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (Anti-VAWC) Act were present, including the public ridicule AAA suffered.

XXX was sentenced to up to eight years imprisonment and was ordered to pay a fine of P100,000. He was also ordered to undergo psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.