Regional Trial Court - Branch 4, Manila

The has laid down guideposts for proving who owns or controls a social media account in criminal cases.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division affirmed the conviction of an individual ( # # #) for committing psychological violence under Section 5 (i) of the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 (𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊) 𝘈𝘤𝘵 against his ex-girlfriend (AAA) by posting derogatory statements about her on 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬.

The SC sentenced # # # to up to eight years in prison, imposed a PHP 100,000 fine, and ordered # # # to undergo psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

The SC stressed 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, the basic features of the platform such as 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬, must be considered.

Noting that 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 is widely used in the Philippines, the SC held that a 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 account can easily be created by anyone claiming to be at least 13 years old with an email address or mobile number.

Once an account is 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. Fake or dummy accounts can easily spread, enabling disinformation, identity theft, or crimes.

Given this, the SC ruled that guideposts are necessary to establish who owns or controls a social media account. It said the following must be shown to prove ownership or access:

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

Applying these, the SC found that several factors proved # # # wrote the 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 post. 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.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158535.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158446.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

Ang karahasan sa kababaihan, sinasaktan rin ang bayan. Kaya atin nang wakasan!

I-report ang mga kaso ng VAW! Alamin kung saan at paano maaaring humingi ng tulong: https://iacvawc.gov.ph/report-abuse/

WORK SUSPENSION: Work in all first and second level courts and offices in Luzon (Judicial Regions I, II, III, IV-A, IV-B, and V, and the National Capital Judicial Region) is suspended on October 23, 2024 due to inclement weather.

Courts and offices in Luzon should be accessible to lawyers, court users, and litigants through their respective hotline numbers and official email addresses.

All concerned judges and clerks of courts should observe the protocols on disaster reportorial and response mechanisms under Office of the Court Administrator Circular No. 262A-2022 if warranted.

Judges should also monitor the condition of their court premises to determine or conduct any required clean-up operation or repair/rehabilitation work.

READ the Memorandum issued by the Office of the Court Administrator on Work Suspension for 23 October 2024 at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/oca-memorandum-work-suspension-for-23-october-2024/


‪ ‬
‪ ‬

The Supreme Court emphasized that statements against public officers do not constitute oral defamation or slander when these concern their discharge of official duties —unless done maliciously.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the Supreme Court’s Second Division acquitted an accused of oral defamation for remarks against a barangay kagawad.

The barangay kagawad was walking past the accused’s house, when she yelled from her house’s terrace that the barangay kagawad was uneducated, ignorant, and biased against the accused in their barangay conciliation proceedings. The remarks were heard by many people as the terrace was beside the highway.

Under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code, there is oral defamation or slander when (1) there is an allegation of a crime, fault, or flaw; (2) made orally; (3) publicly; (4) maliciously; (5) towards a person, alive or dead; and (6) such allegation tends to cause dishonor on the person defamed.

As the law assumes that a defamatory allegation is malicious, or made with knowledge that it is false, the person who made the defamatory remarks has the burden of proving there was no malice.

However, when it comes to defamation against public officers in relation to their duties, the prosecution has the burden to prove there was actual malice in the defamatory remarks. The Court recognizes that the right to free speech empowers citizens to hold public officers accountable because public office is a public trust.

In the present case, the SC said that the prosecution failed to prove there was malice in the accused’s remarks against the barangay kagawad. It stressed that while the statements may be offensive, they are not actionable by themselves: “Being ‘sensitive’ has no place in this line of service."

Read the full press release at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-statements-against-public-officers-not-slanderous-when-related-to-the-performance-of-official-duties/

Read the full text of the Decision at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/246824-argelyn-m-labargan-vs-people-of-the-philippines/

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of a man who secretly took naked videos of his nieces in their bathroom, sentencing him to imprisonment for up to 18 years and a fine of PHP 900,000.

Read more at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-affirms-conviction-of-man-who-took-naked-videos-of-nieces/

What are the requirements under the eFiling Guidelines for civil cases?

Download a copy of the checklist of requirements for litigants and counsels at the eFiling microsite at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/electronic-filing/