SPL

RA 10175
REPUBLIC AC 10175
 The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175) is
a landmark legislation in the Philippines that aims to address cybercrime
by defining offenses, prescribing penalties, and creating mechanisms to
investigate and prosecute crimes committed through the internet and
other computer networks. The law was enacted on September 12,
2012 to respond to the increasing threat of cybercrimes such as
hacking, identity theft, cyberbullying, and online libel.
Key Features of RA 10175

 :
 1. Cybercrimes Defined:
 The law categorizes and defines various offenses related to cybercrimes.
Some of the main crimes covered under RA 10175 include:
• Cybersex: Engaging in or facilitating online sexual exploitation,
including the transmission of obscene materials via computer networks.
• Child Pornography: Production, dissemination, and possession of child
pornography using any computer system.
• Identity Theft: Stealing or using someone else's personal information
for fraudulent purposes.
• Hacking: Unauthorized access to or manipulation of computer systems,
networks, or data.
• Cyberlibel: The act of committing libel through the use of information
and communication technologies (ICT), such as social media platforms
or websites.
• Illegal Access to Data: Gaining unauthorized access to a computer
system or network.
• Cyberbullying: Harassment or bullying through digital platforms,
especially targeting minors.
• Spamming: Sending unsolicited bulk messages, often with the intention
of scamming or causing harm.
Libel or cyber libel

 “Pinahiya ka ba sa facebook/ social media?”

ONLINE FAKE NEWS IS PUNISHABLE

 WRITTEN DEFAMATION: LIBEL

 ORAL DEFAMATION : SLANDER
 DEFAMATION BY OVERT ACTS= SLANDER BY DEED
WHAT ARE THE DEFENSES IN A LIBEL
OR CYBER LIBEL CASE?
 TRUTHFULNESS OF THE STATEMENT
 IT WAS PUBLISHED WITH GOOD MOTIVES AND JUSTIIABLE ENDS
 “ IF THE LIBELOUS STATEMENT WAS MADE THORUGH THE USE OF
INTERNET, THE OFFENDER SHAL BE LIABLE FOR CYBER CRIME ACT AND
SHALL BE PUNISHED ONE DEGREE HIGHER FROM THE PENALTY
PROVIDED IN THE RPC”
WRITTEN DEFAMATION

 EXCEPTION : QUALIFIED PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION

 RADIO PROGRAMS
 BROADCAST MEDIA
 THEATRICAL EXHIBITION
 CINEMATOGRAPHIC EXHIBITION
 EVERY DEFAMATORY IMPUTATION IS PRESUMED TO BE MALICIOUS, EVEN
IF IT BE TRUE, IF NO GOOD INTENTION AND JUSTIFIABLE MOTIVE FOR
MAKING IT IS SHOWN, EXCEPT:
 A FAIR AND TRUE REPORT, MADE IN GOOD FAITH, WITHOUT ANY
COMMENTS OR REMARKS, OF ANY JUDICIAL, LEGISLATIVE OR OTHER
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS WHICH ARE NOT CONFIDENTIAL IN NATURE, OR
OF ANY STATEMENT, REPORT OR SPEECH DELIVERED IN SAID
PROCEEDINGS, OR NAY ACT PERFORMED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS IN THEIR
PUBLIC FUNCTIONS (ART 354)
 “THE PRESS SHOULD NOT BE HELD TO ACCOUNT, TO A POINT OF
SUPPRESSION, FOR HONEST MISTAKES OR IMPERFECTION. THERE MUST
BE SOME ROOM FOR MISSTATEMENT OF FACTS AND MISJUDGMENT. ONLY
BY GIVING THEM LEEWAY AND TOLERANCE CAN THEY COURAGEOUSLY
AND EFFECTIVELY FUNCTION AS CRITICAL AGENCIES IN OUR
DEMOCRACY.”
 THE LIBELOUS REMARKS OR COMMENTS CONNECTED WITH THE
MATTERS PRIVILEGED UNDER ARTICLE 354, IF MADE WITH MALICE,
SHALL NOT EXEMPT THE AUTHOR, NOR THE EDITOR OR THE MANAGING
EDITOR OR A NEWSPAPER FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY (ART 362)
IMPUTATIONS AGAINST PUBLIC
FIGURE ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC
INTEREST
 EVERY DEFAMATORY IMPUTATION IS PRESUMED TO BE MALICIOUS, EVEN
IF IT BE TRUE, IF NO GOOD INTENTION AND JUSTIFIABLE MOTIVE FOR
MAKING IT IS SHOWN, EXCEPT:

 FAIR COMMENTARIES ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST

 (ALLOWED BY THE CONSTITUTION IN CASES INVOLVING PUBLIC
OFFICIALS WITH RESPECT TO THE DISCHARGE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES
AND FUNCTIONS OR AT LEAST A PUBLIC FIGURE OR A PERSON INVOLVED
IN A PUBLIC ISSUE)
2. Penalties:
 RA 10175 imposes a range of penalties depending on the severity of the
crime. Some of the penalties are as follows:
• Prison terms: Penalties may include imprisonment from six years and
one day to 12 years, depending on the offense. For instance, hacking
and identity theft can result in significant jail time.
Fines:

• Financial penalties can also be imposed. The fines can range from
P200,000 to P5,000,000 depending on the seriousness of the crime.
 For certain offenses, such as cyberlibel, the penalties can be more
severe, aligning with those under the Revised Penal Code for regular
libel.
3. Law Enforcement and Investigative
Mechanisms:

 The law establishes mechanisms for the enforcement of cybercrime-

related offenses. These include:
• Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC): This
body is tasked with coordinating and overseeing the enforcement of
cybercrime laws, including the investigation of offenses. It is also
responsible for the creation of policies related to cybercrime prevention.
• National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and Philippine National
Police (PNP): These agencies are authorized to conduct investigations
and operations related to cybercrimes.
 Cybercrime Courts: Special courts or divisions may be designated to
handle cybercrime cases for efficient and specialized adjudication
4. Data Retention and
Interception:
 The law grants authorities the ability to collect and retain data for
purposes of investigation. Under certain circumstances, it allows law
enforcement agencies to monitor online activities and intercept
communications to prevent or investigate cybercrimes.
 However, the law also places limitations on such powers to ensure they
do not infringe on the privacy and freedom of expression of individuals.
Cybercrime Warrants Under RA 10175
(Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012)
 The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175) not
only defines various cybercrimes and prescribes penalties for them but
also lays down procedures for the investigation and prosecution of these
crimes. This includes the issuance of cybercrime warrants—court
orders that allow law enforcement to take action such as searching
computers, seizing data, or intercepting communications in order to
investigate cybercrimes.
 A cybercrime warrant is an essential legal tool that allows authorities
to gather evidence of a cybercrime. Under RA 10175, these warrants are
critical in addressing crimes committed through or by means of
information and communication technologies (ICT).
Types of Cybercrime Warrants Under RA
10175

1. Search Warrants: A search warrant in the context of cybercrimes is

an order issued by a court allowing law enforcement officers to search a
particular location (e.g., a residence, business, or data center) for
evidence of cybercrimes. This evidence may include electronic devices
like computers, mobile phones, servers, or storage media (e.g., hard
drives, flash drives) that may contain illegal content or data related to
the crime being investigated.
Issuance:

 For a search warrant to be issued under RA 10175, law enforcement

officers must show probable cause that a crime has been committed and
that evidence of this crime can be found at the location specified in the
application for the warrant.
Scope:

 The warrant must specify the place to be searched and the items to be
seized. The search must be related to the crime being investigated.
Execution:

 The warrant allows the officers to seize the relevant evidence and
examine it, which could include accessing digital data or taking copies of
stored information (e.g., hard drives or cloud storage).
Warrants for the Interception of
Communications:
 A warrant for the interception of communications is needed when
law enforcement wishes to monitor, capture, or record private electronic
communications (such as emails, text messages, or phone calls) in
connection with an ongoing investigation.

 Legal Requirements: To obtain this kind of warrant, the law

enforcement agency must demonstrate to the court that there is
probable cause to believe that a cybercrime is being committed and that
the interception of communications is necessary for gathering evidence.
 Due Process: The warrant must specify the nature and duration of the
interception, and the communication being intercepted must be relevant
to the investigation.

 This provision is important for investigations into crimes like hacking,

identity theft, or fraud that may involve unlawful communication or
digital correspondence. However, given concerns over privacy rights,
the law includes strict safeguards on how such interception can be
carried out.
 Warrants for the Preservation of Computer Data: The
preservation of computer data is crucial in cybercrime
investigations, as digital evidence can be easily modified or deleted.
Under RA 10175, law enforcement can request a preservation order or
warrant to ensure that evidence found on a computer system or
network is not tampered with during the investigation.
 Issuance: A court may issue a preservation order if law enforcement
presents enough evidence that a cybercrime has been committed and
that digital evidence could be destroyed or altered if immediate action is
not taken.
 Duration: The preservation order generally lasts for a limited period
(e.g., 30 days) during which time the data must be preserved and
cannot be destroyed, modified, or altered by any party involved in the
case.
 Legal Process: This order does not necessarily mean that the
authorities will seize the data, but it ensures that the information is
secured until further legal steps can be taken, such as executing a
search warrant.
 Procedure for Obtaining Cybercrime Warrants
 the procedure for obtaining cybercrime warrants under RA 10175
generally follows the same process as traditional warrants in Philippine
law, subject to specific provisions for cybercrime investigations:
1. Application to the Court: Law enforcement agencies (such as the
National Bureau of Investigation [NBI], the Philippine National Police
[PNP], or other authorized bodies) must file an application for a warrant
with a Regional Trial Court (RTC). This court must have jurisdiction
over the case based on the location where the alleged crime occurred.
 Probable Cause: To obtain any type of warrant, the law enforcement
officers must establish probable cause. This means presenting
sufficient evidence or a credible report showing that a cybercrime has
been committed, that it involves the use of computers or digital devices,
and that evidence related to the crime is likely to be found in the
specified location or communication.
• For example, in the case of cybersex or child pornography,
authorities might present evidence of illicit content being hosted or
transmitted via a particular server or device.
 For cyberlibel, authorities would show that a defamatory statement has
been made online and may provide evidence (e.g., screenshots or IP
logs) that can be traced back to a specific person or location.
 Issuance of the Warrant: If the judge determines that there is
probable cause, they may issue the appropriate warrant, such as a
search warrant or a preservation order. If the request involves
monitoring or intercepting communications, the judge may issue a
warrant for the interception of electronic communications.
 Execution and Seizure: Once the warrant is issued, law enforcement
authorities can execute the warrant by searching the designated place,
seizing devices, and copying digital evidence. The National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) and Philippine National Police (PNP) typically
execute such warrants in cybercrime investigations, with specialized
units trained in handling digital evidence.
 Reporting: After the execution of a search or preservation order, law
enforcement must file a report with the court detailing the results,
including any evidence obtained. This evidence is then used for the
prosecution of the accused individual.
The Cyberlibel Case: Manny Pacquiao vs.
Pastor Apollo Quiboloy

 In 2021, Manny Pacquiao, the famed Filipino boxer and former senator,
filed a cyberlibel case against Pastor Apollo Quiboloy, the leader of
the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, a religious organization. The case
stemmed from a series of online statements made by Quiboloy, who
allegedly accused Pacquiao of corruption and other unethical behaviors.
Background of the Case

 The dispute between Pacquiao and Quiboloy began when Pastor

Quiboloy made several public accusations against Pacquiao, including
allegations of corruption and dishonesty. These remarks were made
during a televised interview and later shared on various online
platforms, particularly through Quiboloy’s social media accounts and
other media channels associated with his religious organization.
Quiboloy's Allegations:

 In his statements, Quiboloy claimed that Pacquiao was involved in illegal

activities and accused him of having questionable financial dealings,
which were the source of the boxer-turned-politician's wealth. Quiboloy,
a controversial religious leader with significant influence in the
Philippines, also suggested that Pacquiao had a “misguided” relationship
with the public and had lost his values, particularly with respect to how
he handled his wealth and political career.
Pacquiao's Response:

 In response to these allegations, Pacquiao felt that his reputation had

been damaged by Quiboloy’s remarks, which were spread across social
media and media outlets. He then filed the cyberlibel case in a
Philippine court in August 2021, accusing Quiboloy of making
defamatory and false statements online that harmed his reputation.
Legal Basis for the Case: Cyberlibel under RA
10175

 Pacquiao’s legal team filed the case under Republic Act No. 10175, or
the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which includes provisions on
cyberlibel. Under the law, libelous statements made through computer
systems or any information and communication technology (ICT) tools
are punishable by law.
• Cyberlibel: Under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, cyberlibel is
defined as any defamatory statement made through electronic means—
whether through social media, email, or other internet-based platforms
—that damages a person’s reputation. A person found guilty of
cyberlibel can face penalties, including imprisonment (6 years and 1 day
to 12 years) and fines.
 The law is particularly important in cases where defamatory statements
are made on social media or broadcasted online, as it extends the reach
of defamation laws to the digital space.
 Key Issues in the Case
 There are several important aspects to consider when looking at the
cyberlibel case between Pacquiao and Quiboloy:
 a) Accusations of Defamation:
 Pacquiao’s legal team argued that Quiboloy’s statements were
malicious, false, and aimed at tarnishing Pacquiao’s public image, which
was especially sensitive considering Pacquiao's status as a national
sports icon and politician. They contended that Quiboloy’s remarks were
baseless and intended to harm Pacquiao’s reputation and integrity.
 Defamation in Philippine Law: Defamation involves the public
communication of false information that harms the reputation of an
individual. In a libel case, the plaintiff (in this case, Pacquiao) must prove
that the statement was indeed false, made with malice, and resulted in
reputational harm. Since the statements were made online, the case
falls under cyberlibel, which imposes stricter penalties.
 b) Quiboloy’s Statements on Social Media:
 The case primarily focused on online statements, which were shared
widely on various social media platforms. Since social media was
involved, it made the case more relevant to RA 10175, which
specifically addresses the jurisdiction of digital platforms in cases of
cybercrime. The widespread nature of Quiboloy’s statements amplified
their impact, reaching not just a national audience but potentially a
global one.
 Jurisdiction: The law on cyberlibel also raised questions about the
scope of its jurisdiction—especially in a case where the alleged
defamation was done via the internet and could have been accessed by
individuals worldwide. The court would have to determine whether the
act of libel, made on a digital platform, was sufficient to bring the case
under the jurisdiction of Philippine courts.
Public Figure Defense:

 One legal defense that Quiboloy might invoke is the public figure
defense. Since Pacquiao is a highly public figure—being a boxing
champion, former senator, and a prominent political figure—there may
be an argument that public figures must tolerate a higher level of
criticism and scrutiny. Public figures generally have to meet a higher
standard of proof to establish that defamation occurred because they
are seen as being in the public eye and more vulnerable to public
commentary.
 Malice and Recklessness: In the case of defamation, public figures
must prove that the defamatory statements were made with actual
malice, meaning that the speaker knew the statements were false or
acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Quiboloy’s defense might
argue that his statements were not made with malice but were merely
part of his criticism of Pacquiao’s political and financial activities.
Conclusion

 The Manny Pacquiao vs. Apollo Quiboloy cyberlibel case is

emblematic of the evolving legal landscape in the Philippines with
regard to online defamation and cybercrime laws. It reflects the
challenges in balancing the right to freedom of speech with the
protection of individuals' reputations, especially in the digital era. How
the court rules on this case will have significant implications for how RA
10175 is interpreted and enforced in future cases involving online
defamation, particularly when it involves public figures and powerful
individuals.