Unmasking the digital culprit: Supreme Court guideposts for social media authorship

It is settled that in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove not only the elements of the crime charged but also the identity of the perpetrator. Even if the crime is established, conviction cannot follow without proving the culprit’s identity beyond reasonable doubt (People v. Cadenas, G.R. No. 233199, 2018).

Establishing identity, however, is particularly challenging in crimes committed online. Social media platforms are widely used in the Philippines, and accounts can be created with minimal verification. Users may operate under pseudonyms, assume another person’s identity, or maintain dummy accounts. Accounts may also be hacked, shared, or accessed by multiple users, and content may be easily altered or deleted. These factors make it difficult to attribute an online post or message to a specific individual, making authorship and control of accounts a crucial evidentiary issue in cybercrime cases.

Several cases illustrate how courts have addressed this challenge. In Catan v. People (G.R. No. 261156, 2023), the accused used a Facebook account to threaten the victim with posting nude photos unless paid. During an entrapment operation, the accused was caught taking the money, and officers recovered a cellphone containing the photos. The Supreme Court affirmed that the accused controlled the account, relying on the presumption that possession of items used in a wrongful act indicates participation (Rules of Court, Rule 131, Section 3(j)).

Similarly, in People v. Bandojo, Jr. (G.R. No. 234161, 2018), the accused, charged with qualified human trafficking, used a Facebook account to offer sexual services. During an entrapment operation, the accused communicated with law enforcement through the account, arranged to meet in person, and received payment. The Court held that these circumstances established his control over the account and authorship of communications.

The foregoing reveals that although attribution of account ownership and/or control is possible, there is no fixed rule in determining the same.

Acknowledging this, the Supreme Court, in the recently decided case of XXX v. People (G.R. No. 274842, Oct. 22, 2025), took discretionary judicial notice of the widespread use of social media in the Philippines, particularly Facebook. The Court acknowledged that a Facebook account can be easily created by anyone aged 13 or older with an e-mail address or mobile number. This ease of creation has led to the proliferation of fake accounts, which may be used for surveillance, entrapment, spreading disinformation, identity theft, or falsely incriminating individuals to facilitate crimes. Here, the petitioner was charged with posting malicious statements on Facebook about his former partner. He denied authorship, claiming he was at work when the post was made.

In resolving the case, the Supreme Court turned to foreign jurisprudence for guidance. Citing People v. Kent (IL App 2d 140917, 2017), the Supreme Court noted different types of evidence to link an account or post to an alleged author, including: admission of authorship, observation of account use, information known only to the sender, distinctive language or style, digital or technical evidence, consistent conduct with prior posts, and other circumstantial indicators. Notably, in People v. Kent, the Appellate Court of Illinois ruled that the mere fact that a Facebook account bore the accused’s name and photograph was insufficient to establish authorship, as accounts can be easily fabricated.

Building on these principles, the Supreme Court in XXX v. People found it timely to provide guideposts for establishing beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the perpetrator of the crime committed through social media, including:

1. Perpetrator’s admission of ownership or access to the account or authorship of a post or communication;

2. Observation of the perpetrator accessing or using the account, or composing, posting, or sending the post or communication;

3. Post or communication contains information known only to the perpetrator or a limited group of people;

4. Use of the account reflects the perpetrator’s distinctive language, style, or other identifying characteristics;

5. Digital or technical evidence linking the account or post to the perpetrator, such as ISP or social media records, geolocation data, device history, or forensic reports, though not indispensable;

6. Perpetrator’s conduct consistent with prior or contemporaneous posts or communication from the account; and,

7. Other circumstantial evidence indicating the perpetrator’s control of the account or authorship of the post or communication.

Applying the foregoing, the Supreme Court in XXX v. People, ultimately found that petitioner authored the subject Facebook post. The SC observed that (1.) the account bore petitioner’s full name and a photo with his child, and (2.) prior private messages from 2015 show he had long used the account, making it unlikely to be a dummy created solely to implicate him. These messages also reflect actions only the petitioner would logically take, such as requesting permission to visit his child from a third party, consistent with his separation from AAA. Furthermore, (3.) the post referenced being blocked by AAA, a fact corroborated by her testimony, and, (4.) interactions with other users linked to the petitioner suggest genuine engagement. Collectively, these circumstances establish that the Facebook account was indeed controlled by the petitioner, thereby leading to his final conviction.

Ultimately, this ruling is pivotal as it shapes how courts weigh digital evidence. By allowing authorship and identity to be proven through circumstantial indicators, rather than rigid technical proof, it provides a practical framework to pinpoint the true perpetrator in online crimes, ensuring accountability despite the fluid and easily manipulated nature of social media.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author. This article is for general informational and educational purposes only and not offered as and does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion.

Chrisha Ver R. Romano-Weigel is an associate of the Cebu Branch of Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRALAW).

(632) 8830-8000

crromano-weigel@accralaw.com