COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

12alleged defamatory article was printed and first published.” The prosecutionchose the second option, on the theory that the place where the website was firstaccessed by the offended party is the place of first publication. The SupremeCourt rejected the said position. By clear implication, however, venue for internetlibel may still be laid using the first option: the place “where the complainantactually resides at the time of the commission of the offense.” (Applying this tothe present case, the venue of a libel action by complainant Tiger may be laid inParañaque City, where Tiger has its residence or principal office as stated in itsAmended Articles of Incorporation. 12 )36. It is notable that in the aforementioned Bonifacio case, the SupremeCourt never ruled out that libel can be committed by means of the internet.37. In fact, the recent enactment of Republic Act (RA) No. 10175, or the“Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012,” confirms that libel under the Revised PenalCode may be committed through a computer system. RA 10175 increases thepenalty for libel committed through the internet by making it one degree higherthan that provided in the Revised Penalty Code. RA 10175 pertinently provides:“SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. — The following acts constitutethe offense of cybercrime punishable under this Act:x x x(c)Content-related Offensesx x x(4) Libel — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel asdefined in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,committed through a computer system or any othersimilar means which may be devised in the future.”x x x“SEC. 6. All crimes defined and penalized by Revised PenalCode, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through andwith the use of information and communications technologies shallbe covered by the relevant provisions of this Act. Provided, That thepenalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than thatprovided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended and speciallaws, as the case may be.”12 Annex B hereof.
13Section 4(c)(4) and Section 6 quoted above in fact clearly imply that there is“libel as defined in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code” and “crimes definedand penalized by Revised Penal Code … through and with the use of informationand communications technologies.” RA 10175 operates only to increase thepenalty for such crimes as provided in the Revised Penal Code.38. RA 10175 further clarifies that the Philippines has territorialjurisdiction over crimes committed by means of the internet or computer system,as long as one of the elements of the offense is committed in the Philippines orwhen the person damaged is in the Philippines, thus:“SEC. 21. Jurisdiction. — The Regional Trial Court shall havejurisdiction over any violation of the provisions of this Act includingany violation committed by a Filipino national regardless of the placeof commission. Jurisdiction shall be if any of the elements wascommitted within the Philippines or committed with the use ofany computer system wholly or partly situated in the country orwhen by such commission any damage is caused to a natural orjuridical person who, at the time the offense was committed,was in the Philippines. x x x”39. It is therefore clear that Philippine courts have jurisdiction over thelibel committed by respondent since the element of damage took place in thePhilippines, where complainant Tiger is incorporated and where it holds its placeof business. Since complainant Tiger is a Philippine corporation doing businessin the Philippines, a libel committed against it injures its reputation in thePhilippines. Damage (in the form of discredit or dishonor or injury to reputation)is thus suffered in the Philippines, and the Philippine legal system therefore hasterritorial jurisdiction over the offense.40. While the implementation of RA 10175 was put on hold by theSupreme Court’s issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order, the Primer onCybercrime issued by the Department of Justice on 26 November 2012 providesthat “as of the moment, cybercrime-related cases are dealt with using existinglaws.” This means that internet libel may be “dealt with” or prosecuted under theexisting provisions of the RPC on libel.Third Element: Identity of PersonDefamed
Page 1 and 2: “Attachment in the following sent
Page 3 and 4: 35.1. Mr. Okada, through Aruze and
Page 5 and 6: 5determined that Mr. Okada was to b
Page 7 and 8: 7laws or other improper or illegal
Page 9 and 10: 9c) Identity of the person defamed;
Page 11: 11that statutes, including penal on
Page 15 and 16: 15intention to annoy and injure. It

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?