Libel is defined by Art. 252 of the Revised Penal Code as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

Unlike slander, a person is liable for the crime of libel by means of printing, writing, engraving, or radio and other similar means. These days, media has been instrumental to the widespread of information or sometimes, misinformation. Be it in politics, business, health and whatnot, it plays a huge role in influencing people especially during the 2016 Presidential Election. While most people already know who to root for, a small fraction of voters were still undecided. In this case, they rely heavily on the information they obtain from radio, television and even social media. 

Under Art. 355, libel by means of writings or similar means. — A libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party.

Election was also a time for mudslinging and because of this, some decided voters were not yet immune to persuasion. Public figures who want to protect their reputation bring matters to court. Media men who are accused of libel will often use Doctrine of Absolute Privileged Communication as a defense to libel. It is interesting to note that this defense needs to meet the requirement of publicity. 

Art. 354. Requirement for publicity.-  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 in the following cases:

1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and

2. 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 of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.

The pictorial maxim of three wise monkeys suggests that we should maintain good mind, speech and action. However, in today's world marred by deception, lies and pretensions, turning a blind eye is not an option.  In the digital age, turning to social media is like opening Pandora's box. You will be greeted by a smorgasbord of gossips, fake news and whatnot. 

However, reality does not get any better. You are judged based on your actions and that is the harsh truth everyone wants to hide in a sugar-coated lie. One would say that less talk means less mistake. When everyone is on the safe side, many people becomes a slave to mediocrity, which is quite boring unless you prefer to become completely dead to the world, unperturbed to what is happening around you. 

We are human microscopes prying something out of a hapless specimen. When you just want to call a spade a spade, it does not give you absolute freedom to spew the words without inflicting harm. Call it accusation or allegation, but it has a certain degree of damage that awakens law from its deep slumber.

You mince your words, but without evidence, it becomes a fabricated story...hearsay. The ears can be selective. It can twist your words and even make things more confusing than you know leaving a bad taste in your mouth. I rest my case.

Burden of Proof and Presumptions

Section 1. Burden of Proof… the Duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim by the amount of evidence required by law. This is also known as the Onus Probandi

I. Introduction.

Relationship between allegation and proof. He who alleges must prove. Allegations do not prove themselves. Although plaintiff’s causes of actions are couched in the strongest terms and most persuasive language, the allegations are of no consequence unless they are substantiated. Similarly, in criminal cases, the offense and the aggravating circumstances charged in an Information remain just accusations until they are shown to be true by the presentation of evidence. Defendant is not relieved from liability simply because the raises a defenses. 

II. Distinguished from related concepts:

1. Burden of Proof Proper or Burden of Persuasion or Risk of Non Persuasion- the duty of the party alleging the case to prove it.

a). This lies with the plaintiff

b). This lies too with the defendant as to his defenses and counter-claim

2. Burden of Evidence or Burden of Going Forward- The duty or logical necessity imposed upon a party, at any time during the trial, to establish a prima facie case in his favor or to overcome a prima facie case against him

3. Points of distinction:

a). The former never shifts but remains constant with the party while the latter shifts from one party to the other as the trial progresses

b). In civil cases where it leis is determined by the pleadings while the latter is determined by the rules of logic.

III. Who has the Burden of Proof Proper

1. The general rule is- he who would lose the case if no evidence is presented. Hence it is the plaintiff as to his causes of action, and the defendant as to his counterclaim.

2. In criminal cases, the burden of proving guilt is always the plaintiff/prosecution. But if the accused sets up an affirmative defense, the burden is on him to prove such by “clear, affirmative and strong evidence” 

The digital era, where anyone can bask in the glory of anonymity, has proven that thoughts indeed travel faster than the speed of light. What used to be a cosmic phenomenon has now been a virtual phenomenon. Everyone yearns to enjoy freedom of speech, but when is too much, too much?

Now that the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 or the Republic Act 10175 has been strengthened, it has also tightened its grip on people violating the law. Andre Philippe LaFlamme, an American national has been found guilty of online libel due to his caustic remarks against his colleague in 2014.

LeFlamme's Facebook posts from 2014 through 2016 pointed to one direction: defaming plaintiff Quennie Samane. A P120,000 bail has already been set to grant LaFlamme's temporary freedom. The posts contained derogatory remarks that tainted the plaintiff's good reputation.

One post showed a photograph of Samane with the heading "I'd do anything for money." Aside from the case of online libel LaFlamme has yet to face another complaint due to threatening other employees. 

The prosecutor will file a warrant of arrest after LaFlamme failed to submit his counter-affidavit.

The violation that LaFlamme committed falls under Article 353, 354 and 355 of the Revised Penal Code.

ART. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

ART. 354. Requirement for publicity. — 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 in the following cases:

A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral, or social duty; and

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 of confidential nature, or of any statement, report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.

ART. 355. Libel by means of writings or similar means. — A libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party.

The case is also in relation to the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012

(4) 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.

A typical day in the life of a mouse potato usually starts with checking some share-worthy news on Facebook and Twitter. Some rely more on social media for some juicy tidbits than reading the newspaper. So if you are looking for some words of wastedom, err wisdom, the Internet is probably the suitable place you would consider going to. In a world of fake, would you still put your trust in news you come across online? While it may seem legitimate, the information is either half-baked or for lack of a better term, not baked at all. Whether the news is about a celebrity who died of suicide, a prime minister commending a politician for his exemplary performance or a wonder cure for a disease you cannot even pronounce, fake news stays in the realm of fiction.

Facebook alone has about 1.7 billion users and it has become a breeding ground for fake stories and misinformation. Anything with a catchy headline is worth sharing right? Everyone can fall prey to what seemed like a compelling piece of information, but sharing or spreading fake news or believing in one is just as bad as rumor mongering. It misleads people, creates chaos, causes disarray, and even damage a person. If you are unsure of the source, it is much better to dissect the information before spreading the word.

Also, the following sites are only meant to entertain. Whenever you come across satirical articles on these sites, please keep in mind that they are intended to inject humor, sarcasm and irony.

1.Professional Heckler (https://professionalheckler.com)

2.Adobo Chronicles (https://adobochronicles.com/)

3.Mosquito Press (http://mosquitopress.tumblr.com/)

4.Agila News (https://agilanews.wordpress.com)

5.So, What’s News? (https://sowhatsnews.wordpress.com/)

DECLARING UNLAWFUL RUMOR-MONGERING AND SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION

WHEREAS, a primordial objective of Proclamation No. 1081 dated September 21, 1972 is the early restoration of peace, order and tranquility throughout the country;

WHEREAS, one of the most insidious means of disrupting such peace, order and tranquility is the utterance, publication, distribution, circulation and spread of rumors, false news or information and gossip that cause divisive effects among the people, discredit of or distrust for the duly constituted authorities and/or that undermine the stability of the government and the objectives of the New Society and, therefore, inimical to the best interests of the State;

WHEREAS, to attain the aforesaid primordial objective of Proclamation No. 1081, it is imperative that such acts be curbed and penalized;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, in my capacity as Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines and pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081 dated September 21, 1972, do hereby order and decree that any person who shall offer, publish, distribute, circulate and spread rumors, false news and information and gossip, or cause the publication, distribution, circulation or spreading of the same, which cause or tend to cause panic, divisive effects among the people, discredit of or distrust for the duly constituted authorities, undermine the stability of the Government and the objectives of the New Society, endanger the public order, or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State shall, upon conviction, be punished by prision correccional. In case the offender is a government official or employee, the accessory penalty of absolute perpetual disqualification from holding any public office shall be imposed.

Done in the City of Manila, this 6th day of January, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-three.

They say, "stick and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". Words can hurt people and can scar them for life. When a person becomes a victim to the throes of another person's anger, hurtful words become a powerful weapon that pierces through the soul. Some would simply shrug these off, but if words have already tainted one's reputation, honor or character, the matters are taken to court. Libel, oral defamation or slander. These are freedom of speech and expression gone wrong. As they say, too much of everything is bad and even if you only intend to express your anger, discontentment or turmoil towards the person by uttering or writing unpleasant words against him or her, the damage cannot be undone. However, deciphering the intricacies of laws concerning violation of freedom of speech and expression can be quite puzzling. So, how does libel differ from slander?

Libel

Libel, according the to Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code is "the public and malicious imputation of a crime, or  of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead"

"ART. 355. Libel by means of writings or similar means. — A libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party."

Slander or Oral Defamation

Slander or oral defamation is defined as speaking of base or defamatory words with an intention to prejudice another person in his or her reputation. Slander by deed on the other hand, is an act committed which tends to discredit or dishonor another individual. (Article 359 of the Revised Penal Code)

Art. 358. Slander. — Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature; otherwise the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.

Art. 359. Slander by deed. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall perform any act not included and punished in this title, which shall cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person. If said act is not of a serious nature, the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.

Whether it is spoken or written, it is every person's responsibility to mince words to avoid hurting another person's feelings. It is true that the freedom of speech and expression is one of the most valued rights, but this does not give you license to say as you please.

Bob Dylan used to say "old habits die hard: the things that are really not important are sometimes the hardest to give up". Perhaps the same principle applies to spreading gossips. When intrusion to someone's privacy becomes a habit, it begins to be part of your system. Although rumor-mongering seems to be a recreation to some, it can still be damaging to one's reputation as it can spread like wild fire. Before you know it, everyone in your community has already heard about a senseless rumor about you. What legal actions can you take against a person who spreads rumors?

Article 26, Chapter 2: Human Relations

"Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:

(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence:

(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;

(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;

(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.

Discussion/Explanation:

1. Duty to Respect Dignity and Privacy
This article enhances human digminty and personality. Social equity is noy sought, but due regard for decency and propriety.

2. Remedies
a. An action for damages
b. An action for prevention
c. Any other relief

A civil action may be instituted even if no crime is involved and moral damages may be obtained.

3. Scope
a. Prying into the privacy of another's residence- includes by the implication respect for another's name, picture, or personality except insofar as is needed fro publication of information and pictures of legitimate news value.

b. Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another- includes alienation of the affections of the husband or the wife. Thus a girl who makes love to a married man, even if there be no carnal relations, disturbs his family life, and damages may therefore be asked of her. Intriguing against another's honor is also included.

c. Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends- includes gossiping, and reliance on hearsay.

d. Vexing or humiliating- includes criticism of one's health or features without justifiable legal cause. Religious freedom does not authorize anyone to heap obloquy and disrepute upon another by reason of the latter's religion."

Social networks have been considered a boon of everyone’s existence as they provide an electronic avenue for expressions and a way to connect with friends and loved ones. Facebook in particular has billions of users and because of its powerful impact, anyone can be exposed to cybercrimes. A private individual can become an instant celebrity if another person recognizes either his good or bad deed, thanks to your mobile phone’s ability to capture the pleasant and not-so-pleasant moments. Due to Facebook’s vast reach, it is easy to build or destroy one’s reputation at the drop of a hat. Sadly, exercising your right to free speech often blurs the line between expression and imputation. Is there such a thing as Facebook etiquette? Do we really have to exercise our freedom of speech regardless of the consequences?

Libeling a public official versus libeling a private individual

Mudslinging has been part of the country’s political culture and when the public officials or public figures have been dragged into shame, most of them will cry foul and resort to filing a libel case to the person behind the malicious statement. However, before a public official can file a case, the libel needs to hold water. The burden of proof will definitely lie with the offended party as he needs to prove that there is indeed a “higher standard of actual malice”. If the offended party is a private individual, the burden of proof is with the accused. This means the accused needs to prove that he has justifiable reason for the defamatory statement even if there is truth to it.

Although truth can be used as a defense, it does not necessarily exempt the accused from the crime of libel. The Supreme Court requires the accused to show “good motives and justifiable ends” for truth to become a valid defense.  For libel committed online, the author of the offending article will be held liable. When a libelous statement is posted on Facebook, the acts of liking, sharing or commenting do not fall under cyber libel. Does that mean an individual can share a libelous post without facing any legal consequences? It is interesting to note that sharing a post and creating a new story to support the statement of the original post can still hold a person liable. For instance, the original author posts “ John is a wife beater” and another person shares the post with a new story that says “he is also a murderer”, this can be considered as another libelous statement despite the fact that he was not the original author.

Aside from libel, there are other ways a person can get sued on Facebook:

•    Copyright Infringement-when a copyrighted material is posted by others without permission from the original author, the individual who posted the content can be liable for copyright infringement.  It is considered an infringement even if it was only shared with a few Facebook friends.

•    Privacy-posting private information of others such as photos can be considered a violation especially when such posts have enabled others to tag or share.

•    Harassment-when someone behaves in a manner that is deemed threatening or intrusive, the person can be sued for harassment. Facebook is a viable platform for harassment and if a person breaks into another person’s account and pretends as the real account user, this act can pass itself off as Facebook harassment.  Unfortunately, harassment can be subjective as one person may believe he has been harassed and another might not.

•    Breach of Contract-although this violation has a very broad area, an individual who talks about work on Facebook even if he has agreed to company rules and regulations may also be liable for breaching the contract.

Regardless of our emotional state, our actions speak volumes. In the throes of anger, non-verbal cues can be considered to be an expression, but when you go overboard and carry your anger to extremes, you can be held liable for a crime of slander by deed. There is completely nothing wrong with expressing one’s emotional state so long as the actions are not aimed at someone. Slander by deed may seem like a new legal concept as oral defamation is commonly used to describe an individual who has spoken defamatory words which can affect another person’s reputation. What if a person pokes a dirty finger at another person, can the act be deemed as slander by deed?

As defined in Art. 359, “Slander by deed. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall perform any act not included and punished in this title, which shall cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person. If said act is not of a serious nature, the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.”

A person cannot be considered guilty of committing slander by deed without taking the nature of the complaint into consideration. If there was provocation on the part of the complainant, slander by deed has a lesser magnitude. Pointing a dirty finger is not held to be libelous. It is considered as a common expression used for expressing displeasure, turmoil, discontentment or anger. However, a person may be found guilty of grave oral defamation or slander by deed if the complainant did not contribute to the offender’s anger.

“Art. 361. Proof of the truth. — In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be acquitted.
Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be admitted, unless the imputation shall have been made against Government employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties.
In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted.

Art. 362. Libelous remarks. — Libelous remarks or comments connected with the matter privileged under the provisions of Article 354, if made with malice, shall not exempt the author thereof nor the editor or managing editor of a newspaper from criminal liability.”

Are Filipinos completely aware of on-line laws and etiquette when using various social networking sites including Facebook? When cybercrime law was implemented in the Philippines, it earned the ire of netizens as it is said to deny freedom of speech.  The law is defined in the Republic Act No. 10175. Without a doubt, Facebook has been a substitute to the old-fashioned journal where you can simply write your thoughts away. In this era of mouse potatoes, you no longer keep a secret in your journal. You share your views, opinions, angst, pains or any challenges that life throws at you on Facebook. 

Yes, Facebook is your very own version of cyber counselling and it does not take long enough to earn sympathy from your “friends”.  While Facebook users consider this social networking site a great relief to stress, it can breach confidentiality once you hit post or share. It does not guarantee secrecy when you know for a fact that there is already an intrusion to your privacy. The million dollar question is: Are we completely aware of what we post on Facebook?

The thesis “The Unintelligent Facebook Users” authored by a Filipino-American graduate school student from Harvard University, Genevieve Molina shows Pinoy Facebook users’ carelessness when it comes to posting status updates, sharing videos and uploading photos. According to Molina’s research, there are 6,020,958 horrific images shared around the world on Facebook on a daily basis and 951,311 are shared by Pinoy users. 

An irresponsible and unintelligent use of Facebook and other social networking sites gets users into serious trouble. Sharing or uploading offensive photos is still part of the cybercrime law umbrella. Although it is an unusual crime, the damage can still be considered irreparable especially when photos become viral. Nela Llamas is just another perfect example that you really need to think twice when uploading videos or photos on your Facebook wall. This 19-year old Nursing Junior at Manila Doctor’s College faces criminal liability because of posting a photo of the late Pete Rogas, who was killed due to a vehicular accident at C5. The incident happened two months ago. 

The family of the victim is still seeking justice for their son and sharing the offensive photo does more harm than good. This is another reminder to Facebook users who are fond of posting offensive photos for the belief that it will alleviate the family members’ emotional pain but it only takes a turn for the worse. Llamas’ case is still on progress and can serve as another warning for Facebook users to be more careful when sharing or posting photos. 

In this modern day and age, raves and rants are taken to social media and when your post is made available to the public, any defamatory statement can spread like wild fire in just a few clicks. While one can use freedom of speech as an excuse to post anything, it does not give you a license to say something offensive to another person. Libellous statements that can ruin a person’s reputation or image can make you guilty of the crime of libel. 

Just recently, a woman was found guilty of the crime of libel and ordered to pay the sum of 100,000 to the offended party due to malicious posts. Ramada Vallespin admitted to posting defamatory statements and since the posts were set to public, it seems easy for everyone to gain access to the post and hit like, share or comment. 

According to the three witnesses of the aggrieved party, they were able to read Vallespin’s Facebook posts and said the posts where ‘false and highly defamatory’.  The accused did not present any substantial evidence that would vindicate her. The accused party has violated Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code.

"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 in the following cases:

1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and

2. 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 of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions."

President Aquino also enacted Republic Act No. 10175, or also referred to as Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. The cybercrime offenses mentioned include cybersquatting, child pornography, identity theft, cybersex, libel and illegal access to data.

These cybercrime offenses can be found under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 10175. Now that the law has been implemented, the case of Vallespin definitely serves as a warning to those whose fingers are itching to post on Facebook for the purpose of humiliating and destroying a person’s reputation. While Facebook can provide a perfect avenue for expressions, you are still held responsible for what you post. You may still want to think before you type because you might end up in court for your posts.

The modern technology provides us a much easier way to rave and rant or so we thought. While turmoil and discontentment can be expressed in more ways than one, taking everything to social media may not be a good idea due to the existence of cybercrime prevention law or the Republic Act No. 10175. 

Social networking sites are now the modern avenue for expressions. Views and opinions can spread like wild fire, thanks to the ‘share’ button of an immensely popular social networking site. However, you may need to think before you click because there are corresponding penalties for people who break rules and cross lines. 

The penalties are outlined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code. This is quite interesting because the provision has been ruled out since the Spanish era. While critics were apprehensive about the degree of penalty, the government officials rejoiced. Need I say more?

Let’s have a look at what the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is all about.

As highlighted in Sec. 4 of the Republic Act No. 10175, the following acts are considered punishable:

a. Offenses made against the integrity, availability and confidentiality of computer systems and data:

• Data Interference: When a person deletes or damages computer data, or electronic data message, without permission including transmission or introduction of viruses, he or she is guilty of committing data interference. Reckless alteration and deterioration of computer data also fall under this category.

• Illegal Access: An unauthorized access to the whole or any part of a computer system.

• Illegal Interception: If an interception is made without right of any non-public transmission of computer data to, from, or within a computer system, a person commits illegal interception. 

• Misuse of Devices: A person violates the law if devices are sold, distributed, imported or made available without right. These devices include computer program, access code and computer password.

• System Interference: Any intentional alteration or reckless interference or hindering with the functioning of a computer network or a computer by damaging, inputting, deleting, deteriorating or altering computer program or data are considered system interference. This also includes transmission or introduction of viruses.

• Cyber-squatting: If a domain name is acquired over the internet to mislead, profit, deprive others from registering the same domain name and destroying reputation, the crime of cyber-squatting is committed. Some examples include identical or existing trademark, the name is similar or identical with a person other than the registrant and domain name acquired without permission or right. 

b. Computer-related Offenses:

• Computer-related forgery: This includes deletion, input or alteration of any computer data without permission resulting in inauthentic data with the intent of making them available for legal purposes as if it were authentic. Dishonest and fraudulent designs are also considered computer-related forgery.

• Computer-related fraud: This crime refers to the unauthorized alteration, deletion or input of computer program or data which cause interference in the functioning of a computer system  or damage.

• Computer-related identity theft: If a person intentionally acquire, transfer, use, misuse, alter, possess or delete identifying information belonging to another, whether judicial or natural without permission or right, he or she commits the crime.

c. Content-related Offenses

• Cybersex: The control, operation, maintenance or willful engagement directly or indirectly of any lascivious exhibition of sexual activity or sexual organs with the help of a computer system in exchange of consideration or favor.

• Child Pornography: The prohibited or unlawful acts, which are also punishable by RA No. 9775 or also known as the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, committed with the use of a computer system.

• Unsolicited Commercial Communications: The offense refers to transmission of commercial electronic communication using a computer system, which seek to sell, advertise or offer for sale services and products without consent.

• Libel: As defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, libel can be committed through a computer system or any other similar means. 

The Cybercrime Law has a broad scope and the hopes are still high that it will soon be abolished. While this law is still at work, make sure you don’t commit any of these offenses.

Imagine a country without laws. It will surely be a land full of chaos and disarray as people can do as they please. No stern guidelines, no rules to follow, no restrictions etc. However, the laws, no matter the complexities, are considered a chain that binds our sanity so we continue to be law abiding citizens. 

Some laws may not work in our favor as they can be odd in every sense of the word, but they still have that element of surprise and entertainment. Unfortunately, entertaining as they may sound, these laws still come with a caveat. Some laws may appear to be out of the ordinary, but just like other laws, you can still get incarcerated once you are found guilty of violating them.

Sure laws, are rigid and formal, but they can be twisted sometimes. Even in this modern day and age, laws that are weird, wacky and obscure still exist. These strange laws can bring laughter, but can also bring you to court once you break them. Well, color me surprised. Although some of them are already obsolete, it is still worth knowing them. 

Now, let's start with number 1....

1. You can end up in jail for violating religious freedom.

The violation of the freedom of religion is covered in ART 132 and ART 133 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that interruption of religious worship and offending against religious feelings can charge a person of a crime in violation of the freedom of religion. This penal law has been in existence since the Spanish era. 

Can you still vividly remember Carlos Celdran who was dressed as Jose Rizal? Apparently, he was found guilty of violating Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. During a mass at the Manila Cathedral, Celdran stood in front while raising a placard bearing the word "DAMASO". Damaso is an oppressive character from Jose Rizal's novel Noli Me Tangere. 

The Iglesia ni Cristo's brouhaha over Justice Secretary Leila de Lima's decision of dealing with the case of serious illegal detention filed against INC leaders recently became the subject of controversy. The issue was taken to social media and there were mixed reactions. To some, it was a violation of INC's religious freedom while others were supportive of the decision and it's not quite surprising that some politicians also came to INC's defense. INC urged De Lima to resign but the Justice Secretary remains unfazed. 

So what's the moral of the story? Stay away from an unfamiliar territory and you'll be fine. 

These days, the prevalence of mud-slinging and cyber-bashing cannot be denied. Even a simple exchange of opinions can turn into a heated argument, thanks to the immense popularity of social networking sites.  The Philippines is considered the social networking capital of the world. Almost everyone has a social media account where they share videos, post opinion or simply connect with loved ones. However, the freedom of expression can also be carried to extremes. This does not come as a surprise considering the fact that many individuals have already filed libel charges against someone who has deliberately dragged their name to shame with their false accusations. 

Libel In A Nutshell 

Under Art. 353, Revised Penal Code (RPC), libel refers to a public and malicious imputation of vice or defect, crime, real or imaginary that can cause the contempt, discredit or dishonor a person. 

There are various ways libel can be committed. A person can commit libel by means of printing, writing, engraving, theatrical exhibition, lithography and others. (Art. 355, RPC). Oral defamation is also referred to as slander according to Art. 358, RPC. When defamation is made in a television, it is also considered libel. 

How can a person be held liable for the crime of libel? 

Any person who published or exhibit any defamation in writing or other means will be held liable for the crime of libel. Aside from the author or editor of the libelous pamphlet or book, the business manager of a daily newspaper will also face charges for the defamation especially if he was proven to be the author of the content or article.  In fact, all people who have active participation in the publication where the libelous article is found will be held liable as well. 

When a person has committed a crime of libel, the action will be filed in the Regional Trial Court of the city or province where the libelous article is printed and published. However, if the offended party is a private person, the venue will be his place of residence where the offense was committed and the libelous article was printed and first published. 

The four elements of libel:

• The imputation must be malicious;

• The imputation must be defamatory;

• The imputation must be made publicly;

• The offended party must be identifiable. 

Retraction And The Action For Libel

When a retraction is published to make corrections to the mistake that have been committed, it does not necessarily mean that the accused will be mitigated. For the desired effect to take place, the retraction needs to demonstrate an admission of the falsity of the publication. The desire to repair the incorrectness must also be included in the retraction.