Lomibao Law Office

26/12/2025

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/.

26/12/2025

As we close another year, we're reminded that the best parts of life happen when we slow down and spend time with family and loved ones. This season, that's exactly what we're doing.

It's been our privilege to serve you this year, and we're grateful for the trust you've placed in us. Please be guided by our holiday schedule. Regular operations will resume on January 5, 2026.

If you have any urgent matters, feel free to send us a message. We'll get back to you as soon as we can.

Wishing you a peaceful holiday season and a blessed year ahead. May 2026 bring you good health, happiness, and everything you're hoping for. ✨

04/12/2025

21/11/2025

The has ruled that wealth acquired by a public officer during their time in office that clearly exceeds their lawful income is presumed unlawfully acquired and may be forfeited, even if registered under the names of other individuals.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division upheld the forfeiture of properties, bank deposits, and investment accounts in the name of retired Lieutenant General Jacinto C. Ligot (General Ligot), as well as assets traced to him but registered under his wife, children, and relatives.

The Ombudsman conducted a lifestyle investigation on General Ligot—who served in the Armed Forces of the Philippines from 1970 until his retirement in 2004, and was a commissioned comptroller during the relevant period—to determine whether the properties he acquired during active service exceeded his salary and other lawful income.

Its probe into General Ligot’s declared assets in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth from 1982 to 2003, which did not reflect the actual properties under his name and those of his close family members, led to a petition for forfeiture filed against him before the Sandiganbayan. Also named in the petition were his wife, their children, and his sister and brother-in-law, who were allegedly used as fronts to conceal his assets.

The Sandiganbayan ordered the forfeiture of the properties worth PHP 102 million as well as deposits and investment funds amounting to PHP 53 million after finding that the same were unlawfully acquired.

The SC upheld the Sandiganbayan’s ruling, noting that General Ligot’s wife and children did not have independent income sources but still owned properties and held significant bank and investment accounts under their names.

Regarding the condominiums, even though they were titled in his sister’s name, the amortizations were paid by General Ligot. The condominium listed under his brother-in-law’s name was initially bought by General Ligot’s wife, who lacked her own income.

The SC held that these circumstances indicate that General Ligot was the true owner, even if the legal titles were in other people’s names.

Under Republic Act No. 1379, properties of public officers are presumed to be illegally acquired when they are manifestly out of proportion to their lawful income.

This presumption applies not only to properties under the public officer’s name but also to those hidden or transferred to others, as long as true ownership can be traced to the public officer.

The SC emphasized that registration under another person’s name does not prevent forfeiture when true ownership can be traced to the public officer.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=155660.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=155651.

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

13/10/2025

UPDATE: The LTO suspends the implementation of the prohibition and penalties on the use of improvised and temporary vehicle plates, which are supposed to take effect on November 1.

LTO Chief Assistant Secretary Markus Lacanilao says it is not the fault of ordinary motorists if their official plates have not yet been issued. | via Izzy Lee, ABS-CBN News

07/10/2025

Court of Appeals Associate Justice Wilhelmina B. Jorge-Wagan, a member of the Supreme Court Special Committee on Cybercrime and Electronic Evidence, and a Professorial Lecturer at the Philippine Judicial Academy, discusses online libel, one of the crimes covered by RA 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, in Episode 88: Cyber Libel 101.

What is cyber libel, and what makes it different from the traditional concept of libel as defined under the Revised Penal Code?

This week's podcast is available on Spotify, YouTube, and the website.

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/7A7aTIzbcfpxWeqSaYYAxv?si=xRKoo5WqRlur18um9gBOFg

YouTube: https://youtu.be/PhSgaEpT_ho

SC website: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/podcasts/

07/10/2025

The has approved the “2025 Transitory Rules on Electronic Filing and Service in the Supreme Court.”

The new rules will take effect on October 30, 2025, following their publication in the Official Gazette, in two newspapers of general circulation, and on the Supreme Court website.

Read the full text of A.M. No. 25-09-16-SC here:
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/25-09-16-sc-2025-transitory-rules-on-electronic-filing-and-service-in-the-supreme-court/