THE Supreme Court has laid down clear guideposts for establishing the identity of a social media account owner or user in criminal cases, affirming the conviction of a man for psychological violence against his former partner over derogatory Facebook posts. In a decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the high court’s First Division upheld the ruling of lower courts that found the suspect guilty of violating Republic Act 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (Anti-VAWC) Act. The case stemmed from the three-year relationship between the suspect and his former partner, which resulted in a pregnancy. Although the suspect offered marriage, the victim refused due to ongoing problems between them, and later raised their child alone while living with her parents. The victim testified that during one visit to their daughter, the suspect suddenly grabbed and groped her, leaving her traumatized. She later blocked him from her social media accounts, including Facebook. Several years later, the victim’s siblings received a private Facebook Messenger message from an account they knew belonged to the suspect, insinuating that the victim was causing his mother to suffer a heart attack. The following day, a friend informed the victim that the same account had posted a public statement in Kapampangan calling her a “dirty woman” and an animal, and threatening to box her when he saw her. The insults were repeated in the comments section of the post. Fearing for her safety, the victim filed a criminal complaint. A protection order was issued in her favor while the case was pending. During the trial, the prosecution presented screenshots of the Facebook post. The victim admitted that she had created the account years earlier for the suspect, but testified that he was the one using it. Her two siblings corroborated this, saying they had long received messages from the suspect through the same account. The suspect denied owning the Facebook account, claiming someone else may have used his photo to create a fake profile. He also argued that he could not have made the post because he was working as a restaurant waiter at the time and had no access to his phone. The Family Court and the Court of Appeals rejected his defense and found him guilty, noting that both the suspect and his live-in partner were able to identify themselves and their child in the profile photo used by the account. In affirming the conviction, the Supreme Court stressed that in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove not only the elements of the crime but also the identity of the offender. For offenses committed through social media, the Court said the nature and features of platforms such as Facebook must be taken into account. The Court noted that Facebook accounts are easy to create, making the proliferation of fake or dummy accounts possible and enabling identity theft, disinformation, or criminal acts. Because of this, the Court prescribed that specific guideposts are needed to establish ownership, access, or authorship of a social media account. These include admission of ownership or authorship; being seen accessing the account or composing the post; the presence of information known only to the offender or a limited group of people; language consistent with the offender’s characteristics; records from service providers or forensic analysis linking the account to the offender; acts consistent with previous posts; or other circumstances showing control or authorship. Applying these standards, the Court found that several factors pointed to the suspect as the author of the Facebook post. The account bore his full name and used a profile photo showing him with his child from his current live-in partner. The victim’s sister had also received messages from the same account for years under circumstances that identify the suspect as the sender, such as requests related to their child. The post itself contained details the suspect was expected to know, including the victim’s nickname and the fact that she had blocked him. The reactions and comments on the post further showed that the account was actively used and not merely a dummy. The Court also rejected the suspect’s claim that he had no opportunity to access Facebook while at work, saying this did not prove he could not have used his phone or another device at the time. Having established that the suspect authored the post, the Supreme Court ruled that all the elements of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of the Anti-VAWC Act were present, including the public ridicule suffered by the victim. The suspect was sentenced to imprisonment of up to eight years, fined P100,000, and ordered to undergo psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.