SC tightens rules on fake online accounts

The Supreme Court (SC) has issued new guidelines to help courts determine the true owners of social media accounts in criminal cases, addressing the growing problem of “dummy” and fake online profiles.

In a ruling dated 22 October 2025 but released just this week, the High Court’s First Division affirmed the conviction of a man identified only as “XXX” for online psychological violence against his former partner, after he posted derogatory statements about her on Facebook.

The decision upheld an eight-year prison sentence, along with a P100,000 fine and an order for the accused to undergo psychological counseling.

In affirming the conviction, the Supreme Court established a framework for lower courts to verify account ownership, recognizing that social media accounts can be easily created, manipulated, or falsely attributed to others.

Under the ruling, courts may link a social media account to an accused through several indicators, including an 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 number of people; and language consistent with the offender’s personal characteristics.

The Court also said account ownership may be proven through records from internet service providers, telecommunications companies, or social media platforms, as well as forensic analysis of devices showing geolocation data or other identifying attributes.

Patterns of conduct consistent with previous posts and other circumstances showing access or authorship may also be considered.

In the case at hand, the accused claimed that the account used to harass his former partner was fake. The Court rejected this defense, citing the use of personal family photos and references to intimate details known only to the accused and the victim as evidence of authenticity.

The Court noted that the ease of creating social media accounts has allowed the proliferation of fake profiles, which can be exploited for disinformation, harassment and identity theft, justifying the need for stricter standards of authentication in criminal proceedings.