Mediaboss Marketing

Social networking has become part of our daily life with 93 percent of Filipino Internet users having their own Facebook account.

On the whole, this is an excellent social phenomenon. But there is also a bad part of it.

Consider, for example, a Facebook post by Mr. Y that reads: Senator X is a crook. He stole millions of taxpayers money from the PDAF. He is a certified thief. He deserves all the public humiliation that he is now getting.

This kind of comment is definitely libelous. It may be the basis for a civil case for damages and a criminal case for libel.

The post, in turn, is admissible in evidence not only in a civil case but also in a criminal case. (SC En Banc Resolution dated September 24, 2002 in AM No. 01-07-01)

The Facebook post in question is considered a document pursuant to the functional equivalence and non-discrimination principles under the E-Commerce Act of 2000 (ECA) and the Rules on Electronic Evidence (REE), which the Supreme Court promulgated in 2001 to implement the ECA in our courts of law.

Under these principles, an electronic document is considered the functional equivalent of a paper-based document and should not be discriminated against as evidence solely on the ground that it is not in the standard paper form.

In fact, Section 12 of the ECA expressly provides that nothing in the application of the rules of evidence shall deny admissibility of an electronic data message or electronic document on the sole ground that it is in electronic form, or on the ground that it is not the standard form.

The REE further provides that [w]henever a rule of evidence refers to the term of writing, document, record, instrument, memorandum or any other form of writing, such term shall be deemed to include an electronic document as defined in these Rules. (Section 1, Rule 3)

In laymans terms, the Facebook post in question should be treated as a paper-based document. The legal question is how to prove or authenticate this Facebook post as evidence in a court of law.

Read more:
Are social media posts admissible in evidence?