In a fairly recent case, the Supreme Court, thru Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, laid down guide post for proving ownership and/or control of a social media account, like Facebook.
In the said case[1], the High Court takes discretionary judicial notice that “in the Philippines, a Facebook account can be easily created by any person claiming to be at least thirteen (13) years of age who has an email address or mobile phone. Once a Facebook account is created, the user can add other users as friends and exchange private messages with them. The user can also post statements, photos, or videos, “which can be made visible to anyone, depending on the other user’s privacy settings. The user’s friends can like and comment on posts visible to them. The user may access their Facebook account by entering the following log-in credentials: (a) username, email address or mobile phone; and (b) password. Xxx
Post and private messages in Facebook can be deleted. For private messages, user have option to delete their private message not only for them but also for their recipients. Facebook accounts can be easily deactivated or deleted by the user. Once a Facebook account is permanently deleted, all its post will also be deleted but its private messages will be stored in the recipients’ inboxes.[2]
The High Court also took notice of the ease by which a Facebook account can be created that allows or aids the proliferation of fake or dummy accounts. These fake or dummy accounts can be used for surveillance and entrapment operations, the spreading of disinformation, identity theft, among others. They can also be utilized to falsely incriminate people or to facilitate the commission of crimes.
Several cases were cited – Catan vs People, People vs Bandojo Jr, and Asa vs People, all of which has a common element in the commission of crimes – the use of social media, particularly “fake or dummy” accounts. In Catan vs People, a case of simple robbery under Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code, the culprit used the Facebook account with name “Rolly Gatmaitan” to threat the offended party that he will post the latter’s nude post unless the latter pay a certain amount of money. In People vs Bandojo Jr, a case for qualified human trafficking, the culprit used a Facebook account with the name “Jhanne David” to offer sexual service of women.
In both cases, the culprits were arrested thru an entrapment and were found in possession of the extorted money, thus, the Supreme Court held, that thru these circumstances, it was established that the culprits owned the Facebook account that were used in the commission of the offense. However, it is evident from the above-cited that there had yet no hard-and-fast rule in establishing the fact of ownership of or access to a facebook account. Hence, the Court, finding persuasive guidance from the pronouncements in People vs Kent, a criminal case decided by the Appellate Court of Illinois, laid down the following guidelines:
For purposes of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt the identity of the perpetrator of the crime or offense committed through social media, the fact of social media account ownership or accesses, 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:
- The perpetrator admits ownership of or access to the social media account, or admits authorship of the social media post or private message;
- 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.
- 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;
- The perpetrators posts or communicates using the social media account consistent with a unique manner, language pattern, or other distinctive characteristics indicating their authorship of the said post or communication
- 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 harddrive of perpetrator’s device, or a social media forensics authorship attribution report show that: (i) the social media account is owned or accessed by the perpetrator;(ii) the social media account is connected to the perpetrator’s email address, mobile number, or the social media accounts; (iii) 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, or 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.
- 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.
- 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.[3]
[1] G.R. No. 274842, October 22, 2025
2 Idem
3 G.R. No. 274842, October 22, 2025
[1] G.R. No. 274842, October 22, 2025
[2] Idem