Anonymity is among the central challenges posed by the rise of cybercrime. Social media platforms make it effortless for users to post, message, or assume a false identity while concealing who they truly are. Anonymity itself is not inherently wrong, but it becomes a shield for bad actors who exploit it to evade accountability.
In criminal prosecutions, anonymity poses a fundamental obstacle. As the Supreme Court established in People v. Cadenas, 842 Phil. 608 (2018), every conviction demands proof of two distinct facts: first, that the crime was actually committed, meaning all its elements are present; and second, that the accused is the one who committed it. In cases of online psychological abuse or harassment, it is this second requirement, the identity of the perpetrator, that anonymity directly undermines.
This challenge is illustrated in XXX v. People, G.R. No. 274842, October 22, 2025 (XXX), where the prosecution confronted a question that strikes at the heart of online abuse cases: when a perpetrator hides behind a false name or fictitious account on social media, how does the prosecution prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he is the one responsible for the hurtful and abusive messages that constitute psychological abuse under the law?
Absent direct evidence that categorically identifies the accused as the perpetrator of the crime, the Supreme Court in People v. Juare, as cited in XXX has relied on circumstantial evidence or those “collateral facts and circumstances from which the main fact in issue may be inferred based on reason and common experience”. Further, Cadenas mandates that the circumstantial evidence must “constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of others, as the guilty person”.
Through XXX, the Supreme Court has established the following guidelines:
For purposes of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt the identity of the perpetrator of the crime or offense committed through social media, the fact of social media account ownership or access, and the fact of authorship of a social media post or private message, may be established by: direct or circumstantial evidence, including but not limited to the following:
1. The perpetrator admits ownership of or access to the social media account or admits authorship of the social media post or private message.
2. The perpetrator is seen accessing or using the social media account, or is seen composing, posting or sending the social media post or private message.
3. The social media post or private message contains information known only to the perpetrator or a few people, or that only the perpetrator could be expected to say or know.
4. The perpetrator posts or communicates using the social media account consistent with a unique manner, language pattern, or other distinctive characteristics indicating their authorship of the said post or communication.
5. The records of the internet service provider or telecommunications company, the records of a social media site, geolocation features, the results from an examination of the search history or hard drive of the perpetrator’s device, or a social media forensics authorship attribution report show that: (i) the social media account is owned or accessed by the perpetrator; (ii) the social media account is connected to the perpetrator’s email address, mobile number, or other social media accounts; or (iii) the social media post or private message originated from the perpetrator’s computer, laptop, mobile phone or similar device, under circumstances in which it is reasonable to believe that only the perpetrator would have had access to such device. In no case, however; should the foregoing records, geolocation features, search history or hard drive examination results, or investigation reports be indispensable in establishing the fact of social media account ownership or access; or the fact of authorship of a social media post or private message.
6. The perpetrator acts in such a manner consistent with the post or private message previously or contemporaneously posted or sent through the social media account.
7. Other pieces of evidence showing that the perpetrator is the owner of or has access to the social media account, or that the perpetrator is the author of the social media post or private message.
The ruling in XXX sends a clear message: hiding behind a fictitious account or denying ownership of a social media profile will not automatically shield an accused from liability. Where social media posts or messages form the backbone of the prosecution’s case, courts will look beyond mere denial and examine the totality of circumstances to determine who truly stands behind the screen. In the digital age, anonymity may obscure identity, but it does not erase accountability.
About the author: Atty. Julia P. Viduya is an Associate in Litigation and General Practice Department of Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan Law Offices. For comments, e-mail litigation@sapalovelez.com, info@sapalovelez.com.
