The Supreme Court (SC) has laid down clear guideposts on how courts may determine the ownership or control of a social media account in criminal cases, as it affirmed the conviction of a man found guilty of committing psychological violence through a Facebook post against his former partner under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Hernando, the Court clarified that authorship or control of a social media account may be proven through circumstantial evidence and not solely by direct technical proof such as digital forensics or service-provider certification.
The Court explained that trial courts may rely on a combination of circumstances surrounding the account to determine who controls it. In this case, the Court treated the following as persuasive indicators:
- prior use of the same account by the accused in communicating with the complainant and witnesses
- presence of the accused’s photographs and personal details on the account
- consistency of the statements in the questioned post with facts known only to the accused
- acknowledgment of the child featured in the account content
- absence of credible proof supporting the claim that the account was fake or created by someone else
The Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence is sufficient where it forms an unbroken chain leading to the conclusion of authorship, especially where the accused’s denial is unsubstantiated.
The case arose from a Facebook post publicly ridiculing and threatening the complainant, which the lower courts found caused her emotional anguish. The man had earlier been convicted by the Family Court and the Court of Appeals (CA) before elevating the case to the SC.
In its ruling, the Court’s First Division denied the petition and upheld the CA’s decision, holding that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused owned or controlled the Facebook account and authored the abusive post through a combination of surrounding circumstances accepted as competent evidence.
The Court further held that the elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 were present:
- a former intimate relationship between the parties
- emotional and psychological suffering on the part of the woman, and
- the suffering was caused by acts of public ridicule and humiliation through the Facebook post
The Court also affirmed the penalty of imprisonment, a ₱100,000 fine, and mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment, with a directive to report compliance to the trial court.
Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.
