Lastrollo, Andrew B.

15-45084

Part A.

I.

None, Maggie cannot be charged with violation of either illegal

sale or possession of dangerous drugs under the Dangerous Drugs Act.

In order to successfully prosecute a case against Maggie the

following elements for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the
following elements must be established: (i) the accused is in possession
of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (ii) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (iii) the accused freely and
consciously possessed the drug.

In this case, Maggie reached Ziggy’s house at the precise time that
the police raided the place. Therefore, no crime can be charged against
Maggie because the chain of corpus delicti in this case, which is the
dangerous drugs itself, cannot be initially traced from Maggie.

II.

a. Plunder is committed by any public official amassing ill-gotten

wealth amounting to at least Php 75,000,000.00 through series of
overt of criminal acts such as:
(i) misappropriation, conversion, misuse or malversation of
public funds;
(ii) receiving, directly or indirectly, any form of pecuniary
benefits (kickback, commissions, gifts etc) from any
entity in connection with any government contract or
project or by reason of the office/position of the
concerned public officer;
(iii) illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets
belonging to the National Government or government-
owned and controlled corporation or any of its
subsidiaries;
(iv) receiving, directly or indirectly, any form of interest or
participation (stocks, shares, equity) including promise of
future employment;
(v) establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial
monopolies or any combination through series of decrees
or orders intended to benefit special interests
(vi) taking undue advantage of hi official position, authority,
connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself at the
expenses and to the damage and prejudice of the
Republic and the Filipino people.
Lastrollo, Andrew B.
15-45084

b. No, the crime of plunder is not merely malum prohibitum it is

mala in se.

Plunder is not simply wrong, because a statute prohibits it, the

offense itself is inherently wrong by nature and omission of which
is immoral in itself.

Therefore, even if plunder is prohibited by a special law and the

doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself, it is still considered
as malum in se, because the the ultimate question of fact is whether
the crime involve moral turpitude or not.

III.

In order for Battered Wife Syndrome to be available as a valid defense, it

must be proven that there is more than one cycle, consisting of the following
phases:

(i) First Phase: Tension Building Phase. In this phase, minor battering
occurs either thru verbal or slight physical abuse. The woman tries
to pacify the batterer through a show of kind, nurturing behavior or
by simply staying out of the way.
(ii) Second Phase: Acute Battering Incident. In this phase, the woman
has no control, and only the batterer can stop the violence which is
brutal and violent and sometime results to death. The woman
realizes that she cannot reason with him and resistance would only
worsen her condition.
(iii) Third Phase: Tranquil Period. In this phase, the batterer feels guilt
and may show a tender and nurturing behavior towards his partner
and the woman also tries to convince herself that the battery will
never happen again and that her partner will change for the better.
The woman will forgive the batterer.

IV.

Yes, it is necessary that the accused acted for a consideration for

and had intended to obtain personal advantage.

While paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j) (k) either
explicitly or implicitly stated the necessity for a consideration or
intention to obtain personal advantage. It was held that in the absence of
any allegation or proof that the accused so acted for a consideration,
payment or remuneration and that he intended to obtain personal gain,
enrichment or advantage, the accused may not be convicted of violating
Par. (a), Sec. 3 of Republic Act No. 3019.
Lastrollo, Andrew B.
15-45084

V.

Two acts are punishable under BP 22. First, the act of making or
drawing and issuing of a check knowing for a fact that there is no
sufficient fund at the time of its issuance. Second is the failure on the part
of the maker or drawer to keep a sufficient fund to cover the full amount
of check issued.

Under Art 315 par. 2(d), the crime committed is fraudulent act of
postdating a check or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation
when here is no or insufficient fund to cover the said check. Here, there is
an element of deceit because the accused obtain something from the
offended party by means of the check he issues and delivers.

VII.

Trafficking is committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group

of three (3) or more persons conspiring with one another. It is committed
in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons, individually
or as a group.
Lastrollo, Andrew B.
15-45084

Part 2: Term Paper

Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012: Salient Features and

Jurisprudential Updates

Republic Act No. 101751 otherwise known as the “Cybercrime

Prevention Act 2012” was signed on September 12, 2020. The law aims to
address the growing legal concern on online interactions, especially in social
media platforms, in the Philippines.

Among the cyber crimes offenses punishable by the aforementioned

law are illegal access to data or online hacking, cyber squatting, cyber sex,
child pornography, identity theft, cyber libel and other computer-related
misuse and fraud.

As early as 2000 laws such as The Philippines E-Commerce Law -

Republic Act No. 8792, popularly known as the Y2K Law2, was passed in
order to regulate computer related activities and made the country a
legitimate player in the global e-commerce marketplace. While it penalizes
crimes such as hacking and piracy, the penalties are deemed too light and the
law did not provide a legal basis for criminalizing crimes committed in an
online environment.

The Cyber crime Prevention Act of 2012 is the first law in the
Philippines which specifically criminalizes online or cybercrime, which
prior to the passage of the law had no strong legal precedent in Philippine
jurisprudence.

SALIENT FEATURES OF CYBERCRIME PREVENTION

ACT

1
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/

2
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2000/06/14/republic-act-no-8792-s-2000/
Lastrollo, Andrew B.
15-45084

I. Punishable Acts

Cybercrime Prevention Act criminalizes several types of offense,

including illegal access (hacking), data interference, device misuse,
cybersquatting, computer-related offenses such as computer fraud, content-
related offenses such as cybersex and spam, and other offenses. The law also
reaffirms existing laws against child pornography, an offense under
Republic Act No. 9775 (the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009) 3, and
libel, an offense under Section 355 of the Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines, also criminalizing them when committed using a computer
system. Finally, the Act includes a “catch-all” clause, making all offenses
currently punishable under the Revised Penal Code also punishable under
the Act when committed using a computer, with stiffer penalties than what
was provided by the Revised Penal Code alone.

The following are the list of the offense defined and enumerated in the the
Act:

A. Offense Against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of

computer data and systems:

1. Illegal access to the whole or any part of a computer without

permission. Sec. 4 par. a (1)
2. Illegal interception made by technical means without permission of
any transmission of computer data within a computer system that is
not intended for public use or display. Sec.4 par. a (2)
3. Intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or
deterioration of computer data, electronic document or electronic
data message or transmission of viruses without permission. Sec.4
par. a (3)
4. Intentional or reckless alteration and hindering with a functioning
computer or computer network. These can be done by inputting,
transmitting, damaging, deleting, altering or suppressing computer
data or by introduction of viruses without permission. Sec.4 par. a
(4)
5. Misuse of devices. Sec.4 par. a (5)

a) The use, production, sale, procurement, importation,

distribution, or otherwise making available, without permission
of:
i. A device, including a computer program, designed or
adapted primarily for the purpose of committing any of
the offenses under R.A. No.10175; or
ii. A computer password, access code, or similar data by
which the whole or any part of a computer system is
capable of being accessed with intent that it be used for
3
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2009/11/17/republic-act-no-9775-s-2009/
Lastrollo, Andrew B.
15-45084

the purpose of committing any of the offenses under R.A.

No.10175.
iii. The possession of an item referred to in paragraphs 5(i)
(aa) or (bb) above with intent to use said devices for the
purpose of committing any of the offenses under this
section.

b) Cyber Squatting. The acquisition of a domain name over the

internet in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy reputation, and
deprive others from registering the same, if such a domain
name is:

i. Similar, identical, or confusingly similar to an existing

trademark registered with the appropriate government
agency at the time of the domain name registration:
ii. Identical or in any way similar with the name of a person
other than the registrant, in case of a personal name; and
iii. Acquired without right or with intellectual property
interests in it. Sec.4 par. a (5)

B. Computer-related Offenses

1. Computer-related Forgery.

a) The input, alteration, or deletion of any computer data without

right resulting in inauthentic data with the intent that it be
considered or acted upon for legal purposes as if it were
authentic, regardless whether or not the data is directly readable
and intelligible; or
b) The act of knowingly using computer data which is the product
of computer-related forgery as defined herein, for the purpose
of perpetuating a fraudulent or dishonest design. Sec.4 par. b
(1)

2. Computer-related Fraud.
The unauthorized input, alteration, or deletion of computer data
or program or interference in the functioning of a computer
system, causing damage thereby with fraudulent intent: Provided,
That if no damage has yet been caused, the penalty imposable shall
be one (1) degree lower. Sec.4 par. b (2)

3. Computer-related Identity Theft.

The intentional acquisition, use, misuse, transfer, possession,
alteration or deletion of identifying information belonging to
another, whether natural or juridical, without right: Provided, That
Lastrollo, Andrew B.
15-45084

if no damage has yet been caused, the penalty imposable shall be

one (1) degree lower. Sec.4 par. b (3)

C. Content Related Offenses

1. Cybersex. — The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or

operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of
sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system,
for favor or consideration. Sec. 4 par. c (1)

2. Child Pornography. — The unlawful or prohibited acts defined and

punishable by Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child
Pornography Act of 2009, committed through a computer system:
Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be (1) one degree
higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775. Sec. 4 par.
c (2)

3. Unsolicited Commercial Communications. — The transmission of

commercial electronic communication with the use of computer
system which seek to advertise, sell, or offer for sale products and
services are prohibited unless:

a) There is prior affirmative consent from the recipient; or

b) The primary intent of the communication is for service and/or
administrative announcements from the sender to its existing
users, subscribers or customers; or
c) The following conditions are present:
i. The commercial electronic communication contains a
simple, valid, and reliable way for the recipient to reject.
receipt of further commercial electronic messages (opt-
out) from the same source;
ii. The commercial electronic communication does not
purposely disguise the source of the electronic message;
and
iii. The commercial electronic communication does not
purposely include misleading information in any part of
the message in order to induce the recipients to read the
message. Sec. 4 par. c (3)

4. Cyber Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined

in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed
through a computer system or any other similar means which may
be devised in the future. Sec. 4 par. c (4)

D. Other Offenses
Lastrollo, Andrew B.
15-45084

1. Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime. – Any

person who willfully abets or aids in the commission of any of the
offenses enumerated in R.A. No.10175 shall be held liable.

2. Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime. — Any person who

willfully attempts to commit any of the offenses enumerated in
R.A. No.10175 shall be held liable.

II. Penalties

The Act imposed stiffer penalty for perpetrators of cybercrimes such

as hacking, computer fraud, cyber libel and other cyberspace offenses.
Higher penalty was imposed in order to defer cyber criminals from
committing offenses prohibited by the act as well as to commensurate the
damage done to the victims considering the scope of the crime committed is
larger than the normal crime e.g. cyber libel has larger scope than Libel
under RPC.

The Department of Justice also raised the bail for different cyber
offenses. The lowest bail bonds are P10,000 for cyber-libel; and P20,000 for
violations of the confidentiality of the investigation, prosecution and trial of
victims of child pornography.

The highest bail of P200,000 is prescribed for child pornography and

related offenses, except for syndicated child pornography, wherein the
offender must be detained without bail.

A bail of P200,000 is also set for offenses committed against critical

infrastructure, which is defined as

“Computer systems, and/or networks, whether physical or

virtual, and/or the computer programs, computer data and/or
traffic data so vital to this country that the incapacity or
destruction of or interference with such system and assets
would have a debilitating impact on security, national or
economic security, national public health and safety, or any
combination of those matters.”4

The following are the penalties imposed to a person found guilty of any of
the punishable acts enumerated in the Section 4 of the Cybercrime
Prevention Law.

Penalty Violation
4
https://technology.inquirer.net/42574/doj-issues-guidelines-on-the-fixing-of-bail-for-cybercrime-
suspects
Lastrollo, Andrew B.
15-45084

Imprisonment of prision mayor or Any person found guilty of any of

at least Php 200,000 fine up to the the punishable acts enumerated in
maximum amount commensurate Sections 4(a) and 4(b)
to the damage incurred or both

Imprisonment of prision mayor or Any person found guilty of the

at least Php 500,000 fine up to the punishable act under Section 4(a)(5)
maximum amount commensurate
to the damage incurred or both

Penalty of reclusion temporal or a Any person found guilty of the

fine of at least Five hundred punishable act under Section 4(a)
thousand pesos (PhP500,000.00) committed against critical
up to maximum amount infrastructure.
commensurate to the damage
incurred or both

Imprisonment of prision mayor or a Any person found guilty of any of

fine of at least Two hundred the punishable acts enumerated in
thousand pesos (PhP200,000.00) Section 4(c)(1)
but not exceeding One million
pesos (PhP1,000,000.00) or both

Penalties as enumerated in Any person found guilty of any of

Republic Act No. 9775 or the the punishable acts enumerated in
“Anti-Child Pornography Act of Section 4(c)(2)
2009”: Provided, That the penalty
to be imposed shall be one (1)
degree higher than that provided
for in Republic Act No. 9775, if
committed through a computer
system.

Imprisonment of arresto mayor or a Any person found guilty of any of

fine of at least Fifty thousand pesos the punishable acts enumerated in
(PhP50,000.00) but not exceeding Section 4(c)(3)
Two hundred fifty thousand pesos
(PhP250,000.00) or both

Imprisonment one (1) degree lower Any person found guilty of any of
than that of the prescribed penalty the punishable acts enumerated in
for the offense or a fine of at least Section
One hundred thousand pesos
(PhP100,000.00) but not exceeding
Five hundred thousand pesos
 Lastrollo, Andrew B.
15-45084

(PhP500,000.00) or both

A fine equivalent to at least double When any of the punishable acts

the fines imposable in Section 7 up
to a maximum of Ten million pesos
(PhP10,000,000.00)
herein defined are knowingly
committed on behalf of or for the
benefit of a juridical person, by a
natural person acting either
individually or as part of an organ of
the juridical person

fine equivalent to at least double If the commission of any of the

the fines imposable in Section 7 up
to a maximum of Five million
pesos (PhP5,000,000.00
punishable acts herein defined was
made possible due to the lack of
supervision or control by a natural
person referred to and described in
the preceding paragraph, for the
benefit of that juridical person by a
natural person acting under its
authority, the juridical person

III. Greater Authority granted to Law

Enforcement and Expansive
Jurisdictional Authority to
prosecute cybercrimes.

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the Philippine

National Police (PNP) who are the chief law enforcement agencies
authorized by this Act. A cybercrime unit or center manned by special
investigator with special trainings will exclusively handle cases involving
violations of the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

Both agencies are also given the authority to collect or record by

technical or electronic means traffic data in real-time associated with
specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system. All
other data which does not refer to communication’s origin, destination,
route, time, date, size, duration, or type of underlying service, but not
content, nor identities, shall require warrant from a court.
Lastrollo, Andrew B.
15-45084

Under this law, service providers are required to cooperate and

assist law enforcement authorities in the collection or recording of the
above-stated information.

The Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction over any violation
of the provisions of this Act. including any violation committed by a
Filipino national regardless of the place of commission. Jurisdiction shall lie
if any of the elements was committed within the Philippines or committed
with the use of any computer system wholly or partly situated in the country,
or when by such commission any damage is caused to a natural or juridical
person who, at the time the offense was committed, was in the Philippines.

There shall be designated special cybercrime courts manned by

specially trained judges to handle cybercrime cases.

JURISPRUDENTIAL UPDATES

I. Disini v. Secretary of Justice (G.R. Nos. 203335, et al.)

On February 18, 2014, in a ruling penned by Justice Roberto Abad,

the Supreme Court ruled 12–1–2 that most of the law was constitutional.

The Court resolved to leave the determination of the correct

application of Section 7 that authorizes prosecution of the offender under
both the Revised Penal Code and Republic Act 10175 to actual cases, with
the exception of the crimes of:

Cyber libel as to which, charging the offender under both Section

4(c)(4) of Republic Act 10175 and Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code
constitutes a violation of the proscription against double jeopardy; as well as

Notably, likes and "retweets" of libelous content, originally

themselves also criminalized as libel under the law, were found to be
legaland this was the only instance in which the court modified the
interpretation of section 4(c)(4). Only Justice Marvic Leonen dissented from
the ruling, writing that he believes the whole idea of criminal libel to be
unconstitutional, and assailing the Court for not finding so.

Child pornography committed online as to which, charging the

offender under both Section 4(c)(2) of R.A. No. 10175 and Republic Act
9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 also constitutes a violation
of the same proscription, and, in respect to these, is void and
unconstitutional.

In total, Section 4(c)(3), Section 5 (only in relation to Section 4(c)

(2), Section4(c)(3), and Section4(c)(4)), Section7 (only in relation to
Lastrollo, Andrew B.
15-45084

sections Section4(c)(2) and Section4(c)(4)), Section12, and Section19 were

struck down by the Court as unconstitutional.

Of note also was the Court's justification for the higher penalties
given to cybercrimes, such as prisión mayor (six to twelve years in prison)
for cyberlibel:

There exists a substantial distinction between crimes committed

through the use of information and communications technology and similar
crimes committed using other means. In using the technology in question,
the offender often evades identification and is able to reach far more victims
or cause greater harm. The distinction, therefore, creates a basis for higher
penalties for cybercrimes.

The Court's ruling also puts the burden of proof for whether or not
there was malice on the defendant rather than the petitioner, even if the
petitioner is a public figure. In his dissent in part, Justice Antonio Carpio
called this provision "clearly repugnant to the Constitution."

II. Other Cases

Some notable cases were filed against journalist and blogger alike,
but none of which reach the Supreme Court.

On 2 March 2020, the first guilty verdict in a cyberlibel case was

returned against a local politician, Archie Yongco, of Aurora, Zamboanga
del Sur.[49] Yongco was found guilty of falsely accusing another local
politician of murder-for-hire via a Facebook post, which he deleted minutes
later, but of which archives were made; the court was unconvinced by his
denial that he posted the message, and he was sentenced to eight years in jail
and ordered to pay damages of ₱610,000.5

Journalists charged with cyberlibel since 2013 include Ramon

Tulfo , RJ Nieto7 and Maria Ressa8. An online post does not even need to be
6

public for cases to be filed by the DOJ. Roman Catholic clergy have also
faced cyberlibel charges.9 Even foreigners have both accused others of and
been accused of cyberlibel charges.10

5
https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1095302

6
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1241519/surrender-of-ramon-tulfo-to-police-for-libel

7
https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/10/10/18/thinking-pinoy-blogger-pleads-not-guilty-to-libel

8
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/magazine/rappler-philippines-maria-ressa.html

9
https://www.manilatimes.net/2019/09/08/opinion/columnists/topanalysis/speaking-the-truth/612936/

10
https://www.manilatimes.net/2019/09/08/opinion/columnists/topanalysis/speaking-the-truth/612936/
Lastrollo, Andrew B.
15-45084

As the act has universal jurisdiction, it is not required that an

offender commit the offense in the Philippines; the DOJ brought up an OFW
caregiver who lived in Taiwan on charges for allegedly "posting nasty and
malevolent materials against President Duterte on Facebook".11

11
http://www.rappler.com/nation/259053-dole-asks-taiwan-deport-ofw-facebook-posts-criticize-duterte