RA 10175

CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

RA 10175
Congress enacted Republic Act 10175, also known as the
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. This law defined and
punished offenses, which may be grouped as follows:
offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and
availability of computer data systems; computer-related
offenses, such as computer forgery, fraud and identity
theft, and content-related offenses, such as cybersex, child
pornography and, most significantly, cyber libel.
 CYBER LIBEL

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.
 Cyber Libel, Elements:

a.) The allegation of a discreditable act or

condition concerning another;
b.) publication of the charge;
c.) identity of the person defamed, and
d.)existence of malice.
 Element #1
"The allegation of a discreditable act or
condition concerning another;"
• The allegation must be a
malicious imputation of a crime
or of a vice or defect
• to cause the dishonor, discredit
or contempt of a natural or
juridical person
Element #2
"publication of the charge;"
• The publication requirement is
satisfied when the allegation is
made publicly through the use of
information and communication
technologies.
 Element #3
"identity of the person defamed"
• It is not necessary that the
person defamed is named.
• If the totality of the publication
makes it possible to determine
who the defamed person is, then
this element is also satisfied.
Element #4
"existence of malice"
• Malice exists when the offender
makes the defamatory statement
with the knowledge that it is
false or with reckless disregard
of whether it was false or not.
 cyberlibel
• alleged defamatory material is
posted in the internet.
defamation
• Defamation on the Internet can
be classified as cyberlibel if the
offending material is published
on bulletin boards, emails, chat
rooms, social media,
newspapers, magazines, and the
like.
Person Liable for Cyber Libel
“Art. 360. Persons responsible. — Any person who shall
publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of
any defamation in writing or by similar means, shall be
responsible for the same.
in relation to the crime of cyber libel, you have two (2) personalities that are
clearly subjected to liability for the crime:

• The author of the libelous post, which includes the person who shall
publish, exhibit or cause the publication of the libelous post.

• The editor or business manager, in case the libelous post is contained in a

book, pamphlet, newspaper, magazine or serial publication.
VIRGINIA DIO v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND TIMOTHY
DESMOND

G.R. No. 208146 | 2016-06-08

PETITIONER: VIRGINIA DIO

RESPONDENTS: PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND TIMOTHY DESMOND
 Facts:
• Desmond filed a libel complaint against Dio arising from purported libelous
statement contained in an e-mail and sent by Virginia Dio to officials of the
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority.

• Two informations were filed against Dio for sending electronic messages that
are defamatory or constituting an act causing or tending to cause dishonor,
discredit or contempt against the person of the said Timothy Desmond, to the
damage and prejudice of the said offended party.
 From the 1st information, the electronic message contains the below:

'NOW THAT WE ARE SET TO BUILD THE HOTEL SO THAT YOU COULD SURVIVED, (sic)
YOU SHOULD STOP YOUR NONSENSE THREAT BECAUSE YOU COULD NOT EVEN
FEED YOUR OWN SELF UNLESS WE PAY YOUR EXHORBITANT (sic) SALARY, HOUSE
YOU ADN (sic) SUPPORT ALL YOUR PERSONAL NEEDS. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED
IN DOING THIS. AS FAR AS WE ARE CONCERNED, YOU ARE NOTHING EXCEPT A
PERSON WHO IS TRYING TO SURVIVED (sic) AT THE PRETEXT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
AND ANIMAL PROTECTOR [sic]. YOU ARE PADI (sic) TO THE LAST CENTS ON ALL
YOUR WORK IN THE WORK (sic). AT THE SAME TIME, YOU BLOATED THE PRICE OF
EACH ANIMAL YOU BROUGHT TO THE PHILIPPINES from US$500,000.00 to
US$750,000.00 each so that you could owned (sic) more shares that you should. Please look into
this deeply.

IF YOU INSISTS (sic) TO BE CALLED AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND ANIMAL PROTECTOR

IN OUR COUNTRY, THEN YOU AND YOUR WIFE SHOULD STOP BLEEDING THE
COMPANY WITH YOUR MONTHLY PAYROLL OF ALMOST P1 MILLION A MONTH.'
 From the 2nd information, the electronic message contains the below:

'Dear Winston and Fatima:

UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF TIM DESMOND AS CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER OF SBME, AS OF THIS DATE THE COMPANY HAD INCURRED A LOSS OF
MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED MILLION. A BALANCE SHEET SUBMITTED TODAY BY
THEIR ACCOUNTANT JULIET REFLECT AND (sic) ASSETS OF MORE THAN THREE
HUNDRED MILLION PESOS, 50% OF WHICH IS OVERVALUED AND NON-EXISTENT.
TIM DESMOND AND FAMILY HAD ACCUMULATED A (sic) SHARES OF MORE THAN
70% OF THE RECORDED PAID UP CAPITAL BY OVERVALUING OF THE ASSETS
CONTRIBUTION, PAYMENT TO THEIR OWN COMPANY IN THE USA, ETC. AT THE
SAME TIME, TIM DESMOND AND FAMILY BLEED THE COMPANY FROM DATE OF
INCORPORATION TO PRESENT FOR AN AVERAGE OF ONE MILLION PER MONTH FOR
THEIR PERSONAL GAIN, LIKE SALARY, CAR, ET, [sic] ETC.
 Facts:
• Dio filed an Omnibus Motion to quash the Informations for failure to allege
publication and lack of jurisdiction.
• The trial court's Order denied both Motions and scheduled Dio's arraignment.
• Dio moved for partial reconsideration which the trial court finally granted.

• Desmond then filed a Notice to Appeal in the Court of Appeals.

• CA granted Desmond's appeal and remanded the case back to the trial court.
 Facts:
• Dio filed a Motion for Reconsideration but CA denied the motion.
• Hence, the petition was filed in the Supreme Court.

• Dio argues that publication, one of the elements of libel, was not present in the case.
She asserts that emailing does not constitute publication under Article 355 of the
Revised Penal Code. As there was no allegation in the Informations that the emails
were received, accessed, and read by third persons other than Desmond, there could
be no publication.
 Facts:
• Dio raised that the Informations are defective for failure to allege "where the
libelous article was printed and first published" or "where the offended party
actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense" and as such cannot be
cured by mere amendment even before arraignment.

• Dio argues that she sent the emails as private communication to the officers of the
corporation, who were in the position to act on her grievances. The emails were sent
in good faith, with justifiable ends, and in the performance of a legal duty.
 Issue 1:

• The primordial issue for resolution is whether an

information's failure to establish venue is a defect
that can be cured by amendment before
arraignment.
 Ruling:
• If a motion to quash is based on a defect in the information that can be cured by
amendment.

• In this case, petitioner Virginia Dio has not yet been arraigned and if the information
is defective, the prosecution must be given the opportunity to amend it before it may
be quashed.
 Issue 2:

• Whether emails are covered under Article

355 of the Revised Penal Code.
 Ruling:
• Petitioner claims this is bolstered by the enactment of Republic Act No. 10175,
otherwise known as the Anti-Cybercrime Law, which widened the scope of libel to
include libel committed through email, among others.

• Whether emailing or, as in this case, sending emails to the persons named in the
Informations—who appear to be officials of Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority
where Subic Bay Marine Exploratorium is found—is sufficiently "public," as
required by Articles 353 and 355 of the Revised Penal Code and by the Anti-
Cybercrime Law, is a matter of defense that should be properly raised during trial.
 Ruling:
• The Supreme Court declined to preempt the decision on the issue of the “public”
character of the emails which is best left for now to the decision of trial court stating
that “The scope and extent of that protection cannot be grounded in abstractions."

• The facts of this case need to be proven by evidence; otherwise, this Court exercises
barren abstractions that may wander into situations only imagined, not real.”

• The Petition is denied.