With the proliferation of fake or dummy social media accounts that can easily be created, the Supreme Court (SC) has laid down guideposts to help identify who owns or control an account involved in a criminal case.

The SC said the seven guideposts to prove ownership or control:

1. Admission of ownership or authorship.

2. Being seen accessing the account or composing the post.

3. Containing information known only to the offender or a few people.

4. Language consistent with the offender’s characteristics.

5. Records from the internet service provider, telecommunications company, or social media site, and results from device forensic analysis showing geolocation features, and other attributes linking the account to the offender.

6. Acts consistent with previous posts.

7. Other instances showing ownership, access, or authorship.

The guideposts were issued by the SC in a decision that affirmed the conviction of a person for psychological violence against his former girlfriend by posting derogatory statements against her on Facebook.

In a summary of the decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s Office of the Spokesperson said that the man and the woman had been in a relationship for three years when she became pregnant.

She did not accept his offer of marriage. She raised their child alone and lived with her parents.

During one visit to their daughter, the man suddenly grabbed and groped the woman. Furious and traumatized, she blocked him from her social media accounts, including Facebook.

Years later, the woman’s siblings received a private message on Facebook from an account they knew belonged to the man. Later, the woman’s friend received a post calling her a dirty person and an animal.

The post also threatened to box the woman when he sees her. He repeatedly posted insults in his social media posts.

The woman filed a case against the man for violation of Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (VAWC). A protection order was issued by the court pending resolution of the case.

During the trial, printouts of the screenshot of the Facebook post were presented. The woman admitted that she created the account for the man who has been using it.

The two siblings also testified that they received messages from the man’s accounts.

While the man denied ownership of the account, he identified the persons in the profile photo as himself and one of his children with his live-in partner. But he said, someone might have used the photo to create a fake account.

At the same time, the man said he could not have posted the photo on the account because at the time he was working as a waiter in a restaurant.

Both the trial court, acting as a family court, and the Court of Appeals (CA) rejected the man’s denials and convicted him.

The SC affirmed his conviction as it pointed out that in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove not only the elements of the crime but also the identity of the offender.

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

It also said that once a social media account has been 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.

Applying the seven guideposts, the SC said that several factors proved the man wrote the Facebook post. It also said the account name bore his full name, and the profile photo showed him with his child with his current live-in partner.

At the same time, the SC said that the woman’s siblings also received messages from the same account for years. It cited a post in which the man requested to visit his child on her birthday.

After establishing that the man made the posts, the SC ruled that all the elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of RA 9262 were present, including the public ridicule the woman suffered.

The man’s conviction was affirmed including the jail term of up to eight years in prison with a fine of P100,000. He was also ordered to undergo psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.