See - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/september2012/177857-58.pdf
"x x x.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DENY with FINALITY the instant Motion for Reconsideration dated February 14, 2012 for lack of merit.
The Court further resolves to CLARIFY that the 753,848,312 SMC Series 1 preferred shares of the CIIF companies converted from the CIIF block of SMC shares, with all the dividend earnings as well as all increments arising from, but not limited to, the exercise of preemptive rights subject of
the September 17, 2009 Resolution, shall now be the subject matter of the January 24, 2012 Decision and shall be declared owned by the Government and be used only for the benefit of all coconut farmers and for the development of the coconut industry.
As modified, the fallo of the January 24, 2012 Decision shall read, as follows:
WHEREFORE, the petitions in G.R. Nos. 177857-58 and 178793 are hereby DENIED. The Partial Summary Judgment dated July 11, 2003 in Civil Case No. 0033-A as reiterated with modification in Resolution dated June 5, 2007, as well as the Partial Summary Judgment dated May 7, 2004 in Civil Case No. 0033-F, which was effectively amended in
Resolution dated May 11, 2007, are AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION, only with respect to those issues subject of the petitions in G.R. Nos. 177857-58 and 178193. However, the issues raised in G.R. No. 180705 in relation to Partial Summary Judgment dated July 11, 2003 and Resolution dated June 5, 2007 in Civil Case No. 0033-A, shall be decided by this Court in a separate decision.
The Partial Summary Judgment in Civil Case No. 0033-A dated July 11, 2003, is hereby MODIFIED, and shall read as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, We rule as follows:
SUMMARY OF THE COURT’S RULING.
Resolution G.R. Nos. 177857-58 & 178193
A. Re: CLASS ACTION MOTION FOR A SEPARATE
SUMMARY JUDGMENT dated April 11, 2001 filed by
Defendant Maria Clara L. Lobregat, COCOFED, et al., and
Ballares, et al.
The Class Action Motion for Separate Summary Judgment dated April 11, 2001 filed by defendant Maria Clara L. Lobregat, COCOFED, et al. and Ballares, et al., is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
B. Re: MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(RE: COCOFED, ET AL. AND BALLARES, ET AL.) dated
April 22, 2002 filed by Plaintiff.
1. a. The portion of Section 1 of P.D. No. 755, which reads:
…and that the Philippine Coconut Authority is hereby
authorized to distribute, for free, the shares of stock of the
bank it acquired to the coconut farmers under such rules and
regulations it may promulgate.
taken in relation to Section 2 of the same P.D., is
unconstitutional: (i) for having allowed the use of the CCSF
to benefit directly private interest by the outright and
unconditional grant of absolute ownership of the
FUB/UCPB shares paid for by PCA entirely with the CCSF
to the undefined “coconut farmers”, which negated or
circumvented the national policy or public purpose declared
by P.D. No. 755 to accelerate the growth and development
of the coconut industry and achieve its vertical integration;
and (ii) for having unduly delegated legislative power to the
PCA.
b. The implementing regulations issued by PCA, namely,
Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1975 and
Resolution No. 074-78 are likewise invalid for their
failure to see to it that the distribution of shares serve
exclusively or at least primarily or directly the
aforementioned public purpose or national policy
declared by P.D. No. 755.
2. Section 2 of P.D. No. 755 which mandated that the coconut
levy funds shall not be considered special and/or fiduciary
funds nor part of the general funds of the national
government and similar provisions of Sec. 5, Art. III, P.D.
No. 961 and Sec. 5, Art. III, P.D. No. 1468 contravene the
provisions of the Constitution, particularly, Art. IX (D),
Sec. 2; and Article VI, Sec. 29 (3).
3. Lobregat, COCOFED, et al. and Ballares, et al. have not
legally and validly obtained title of ownership over the
subject UCPB shares by virtue of P.D. No. 755, the
Agreement dated May 25, 1975 between the PCA and
defendant Cojuangco, and PCA implementing rules, namely, Adm. Order No. 1, s. 1975 and Resolution No. 074-78.
Resolution G.R. Nos. 177857-58 & 178193
4. The so-called “Farmers’ UCPB shares” covered by 64.98%
of the UCPB shares of stock, which formed part of the 72.2% of the shares of stock of the former FUB and now of the UCPB, the entire consideration of which was charged by PCA to the CCSF, are hereby declared conclusively owned by, the Plaintiff Republic of the Philippines.
… … …
SO ORDERED.
The Partial Summary Judgment in Civil Case No. 0033-F dated May 7, 2004, is hereby MODIFIED, and shall read as follows:
WHEREFORE, the MOTION FOR EXECUTION OF PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (RE: CIIF BLOCK OF SMC SHARES OF STOCK) dated August 8, 2005 of the plaintiff is hereby denied for lack of merit. However, this Court orders the severance of this particular claim of Plaintiff. The Partial Summary Judgment dated May 7, 2004 is now considered a separate final and appealable judgment with respect to the said CIIF Block of SMC shares of stock.
The Partial Summary Judgment rendered on May 7, 2004 is modified by deleting the last paragraph of the dispositive portion, which will now read, as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we hold that:
The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Re: Defendants
CIIF Companies, 14 Holding Companies and Cocofed, et al) filed by Plaintiff is hereby GRANTED.
ACCORDINGLY, THE CIIF COMPANIES, NAMELY:
1. Southern Luzon Coconut Oil Mills (SOLCOM);
2. Cagayan de Oro Oil Co., Inc. (CAGOIL);
3. Iligan Coconut Industries, Inc. (ILICOCO);
4. San Pablo Manufacturing Corp. (SPMC);
5. Granexport Manufacturing Corp. (GRANEX); and
6. Legaspi Oil Co., Inc. (LEGOIL),
AS WELL AS THE 14 HOLDING COMPANIES,
NAMELY:
1. Soriano Shares, Inc.;
2. ACS Investors, Inc.;
3. Roxas Shares, Inc.;
4. Arc Investors; Inc.;
5. Toda Holdings, Inc.;
6. AP Holdings, Inc.;
7. Fernandez Holdings, Inc.;
8. SMC Officers Corps, Inc.;
9. Te Deum Resources, Inc.;
10. Anglo Ventures, Inc.;
11. Randy Allied Ventures, Inc.;
12. Rock Steel Resources, Inc.;
13. Valhalla Properties Ltd., Inc.; and
14. First Meridian Development, Inc.
AND THE CONVERTED SMC SERIES 1 PREFERRED
SHARES TOTALING 753,848,312 SHARES SUBJECT OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE COURT DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 TOGETHER "WITH ALL DIVIDENDS DECLARED, PAID OR ISSUED THEREON AFTER THAT DATE, AS WELL AS ANY INCREMENTS THERETO ARISING FROM, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, EXERCISE OF PRE-EMPTIVE RIGHTS ARE DECLARED OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO RE USED ONLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL COCONUT FARMERS AND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COCONUT INDUSTRY. AND ORDERED RECONVEYED TO THE GOVERNMENT.
THE COURT AFFIRMS THE RESOLUTIONS ISSUED BY THE SANDIGANBAYAN ON JUNE 5, 2007 IN CIVIL CASE NO. 0033-A AND ON MA Y 11, 2007 IN CIVIL CASE NO. 0033-F, THAT THERE IS NO MORE NECESSITY OF FURTHER TRIAL WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE OF OWNERSIIIP OF (1) THE SEQUESTERED UCI'B SHARES, (2) THE CIIF BLOCK OF SMC SHARES. AND (3) THE CIIF COMPANIES, AS THEY HAVE FINALLY BEEN ADJUDICATED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENTS DATED JULY 11, 2003 AND MAY 7, 2004.
SO ORDERED.
Costs against petitioners COCOFED, et al. in G.R. Nos. 177857-58 and Danilo S. Ursua in G.R. No. 178193.
No further pleading~ shall he entertained. Let Entry of Judgment be made in due course.
x x x."
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Superseding events have rendered the instant case moot and academic - Supreme Court E-Library -- G.R. NO. 93694: PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION, INC. [COCOFED], COCONUT INVESTMENT COMPANY [CIC], COCOFED MARKETING CORPORATION [COCOMARK], MARIA CLARA L. LOBREGAT, BIENVENIDO MARQUEZ, JOSE R. ELEAZAR, JR., DOMINGO ESPINA, JOSE GOMEZ, CELESTINO SABATE, MANUEL DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. V. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN FIRST DIVISION, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT
Supreme Court E-Library -- G.R. NO. 93694: PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION, INC. [COCOFED], COCONUT INVESTMENT COMPANY [CIC], COCOFED MARKETING CORPORATION [COCOMARK], MARIA CLARA L. LOBREGAT, BIENVENIDO MARQUEZ, JOSE R. ELEAZAR, JR., DOMINGO ESPINA, JOSE GOMEZ, CELESTINO SABATE, MANUEL DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. V. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN FIRST DIVISION, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT
"x x x.
"x x x.
Superseding events have rendered
the instant case moot and academic
the instant case moot and academic
In Mendoza v. Villas,[15] the Court explained the concept of mootness, citing Gunsi, Sr. v. Commissioners: [16]
In Gunsi, Sr. v. Commissioners, The Commission on Elections, the Court defined a moot and academic case as follows:
A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value. As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such case, or dismiss it on ground of mootness.
Sec. 8, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court specifically provides for the effect of the amendment of pleadings, to wit:
Section 8. Effect of amended pleadings. — An amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. However, admissions in superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against the pleader, and claims or defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived.
Thus, the Court considered the issue of whether an original complaint should have been dismissed for having become moot with the admission of an amended complaint in Lu v. Lu Ym, Sr.[17] The Court ruled in this wise:
With the issue of admission of the amended complaint resolved, the question of whether or not the original complaint should have been dismissed was mooted. Section 8, Rule 1.0 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that an amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. In this case, the original complaint was deemed withdrawn from the records upon the admission of the amended complaint. This conclusion becomes even more pronounced in that the RTC already rendered a decision on the merits of the said amended complaint, not to mention the Lu Ym father and sons' concurrence in the mootness of the issue in the instant petition. (Emphasis supplied.)
Evidently, with the admission of the subdivided complaints in the instant case, the original complaint in CC 0033 is deemed withdrawn from the records, such that CC 0033 no longer exists. Correlatively, the issues pending in CC 0033 must be likewise considered moot and academic.
x x x."
Senator files complaint vs Cybercrime Act | ABS-CBN News
Senator files complaint vs Cybercrime Act | ABS-CBN News
"x x x.
"x x x.
MANILA, Philippines - Sen. Teofisto “TG” Guingona III on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to declare as unconstitutional several provisions in Republic Act 10175, otherwise known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which criminalizes online libel.
In his petition, Guingona said the new law makes a “fatal step backwards” due to its overly vague and oppressive provisions on libel.
“Without a clear definition of the crime of libel and the persons liable, virtually, any person can now be charged with a crime –even if you just like, retweet or comment on an online update or blog post containing criticisms,” he said.
The senator’s petition is the fourth to be filed before the SC against the new cybercrime law. The earlier petitions urged the Court to strike down several provisions of RA Act 10175, particularly on online libel, the authority given to the Department of Justice to block websites even without a court review, and the warrantless monitoring of electronic data.
In his petition, Guingona said the new law imposes stricter penalties to online libel than what is prescribed in the Revised Penal Code. He said punishment for traditional print media libel is up to 4 years and 2 months while online libel is punishable by 12-year imprisonment period.
He warned that the law “demonizes technology and sends the message that the computer user is more evil than those who write on traditional media.”
Guingona also noted that any person who writes something online that is deemed libelous can be prosecuted under the Revised Penal Code and the Cybercrime Prevention Act. He said this goes against the 1987 Constitution, which protects people against double jeopardy.
x x x."
Friday, September 21, 2012
What to ask your agent before buying property | Inquirer Business
What to ask your agent before buying property | Inquirer Business
"X X X.
"X X X.
In 2009, an estimated 85 percent of cases being filed with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board legal office involved refunds of installment payments on real estate properties. The refunds of installment payments included subdivision and condominium developments in Metro Manila.
What may have become an all-too-familiar scenario in the HLURB halls have been complainants filing cases against developers who didn’t complete their projects, despite receiving payments even during the pre-selling phase.
HLURB legal officer Mike Denava lamented that prospective buyers should oblige their sales agents (even of reputable developers) to show documents pertaining to the project and the developer before giving the downpayment.
Aside from that, Denava and fellow officers from HLURB advise the following, before buyers commit to pay for properties:
1 Do an honest-to-goodness reality check. Will your resources allow you to maintain a monthly amortization? Look into your source of income, whether you can afford to pay equity and the monthly installments.
“We have seen many cases of overseas workers who bought preselling properties but could no longer maintain the monthly amortization even before the house and lot or condominium was turned over because their contracts abroad were not renewed,” said Denava.
2 Check if the broker/agent is registered with the HLURB and especially ensure that the property being eyed has not been sold to other buyers.
3 Make sure that the developer has a License to Sell for the particular project. Ask the seller or broker/agent of the developer if the project is registered and has a license to sell issued by the HLURB. This can be verified in the HLURB website (www.hlurb.gov.ph).
Runel B. Taningco of HLURB’s Information and Communications Technology Division advised prospective buyers to go over the HLURB list of projects that have failed to show any license to sell and have violations on record. He revealed that most of the entries on the list involved preselling projects.
For the list of the projects in Metro Manila and Rizal that have cease and desist orders, check out http://hlurb.gov.ph/ wp-content/uploads/home/ project%20with%20CDO/ CDOENCR.htm. For nationwide projects outside of Metro Manila and Rizal, check with the HLURB regional operations at http://hlurb.gov.ph/about-us/.
“We try to put everything in the website guidelines. We try to update as frequently as possible. Preselling (violations) should be reported to us. Without reports/complaints, we cannot issue CDOs (cease and desist orders). (Our) regional offices maintain monitoring groups: status of developments of projects that were issued licenses to sell,” explained Taningco.
He added that there have been incidents where buyers did verify preselling projects at HLURB, but only after they had already been paying for the property for more than a year.
Buyers are also advised to read Presidential Decree 957, or the Subdivision and Condominium Buyer’s Protective Decree (as amended by PD 1216). The decree involves regulating the sale of subdivision lots and condominiums, and provides penalties for violations.
An Inquirer Property reader once commented that “no pre-selling should be the rule, unless the project is at least 80 percent complete.” The reader went on to say that “as it is, the delay in the delivery of the units and the documentary proof of ownership is the common practice by most developers.”
4 Personally visit the subdivision/condominium, where the house and lot or condo unit to be purchased is located. Check if the materials of the house or condo unit conform with the development standards and approved construction specifications submitted to HLURB. Check also who would pay the cost of the water and electric meters, the subdivision perimeter fence, and so on. Check also who would eventually operate the subdivision/ condominium’s water system.
5 If the project has a License to Sell, you may already enter into a contract to sell with the owner/developer. However, there are things which must be checked before signing the contract:
• The date of completion of the project as indicated in the License to Sell;
• If the property is mortgaged from the HLURB;
• The facilities and amenities represented in the advertisement flyers/brochures are in accordance with the approved subdivision and condominium plan on file with HLURB.
6 Before signing the Contract to Sell:
• Don’t sign any blank form of the CTS.
• Read thoroughly all the contents of the CTS, especially the terms and conditions in fine print.
• Secure a copy of the CTS and all other documents that you signed.
• Make sure that the CTS would be registered by the owner/developer to the Register of Deeds.
• Pay directly to the owner/developer or the marketing agent authorized by said owner/developer;
• Ask official receipts on all payments for your file.
x x x."
Cops may tap Skype conversations, e-mails under new cybercrime law | Inquirer Technology
Cops may tap Skype conversations, e-mails under new cybercrime law | Inquirer Technology
"x x x.
"x x x.
A Taiwanese suspected of being a member of an online fraud syndicate looks out from the window of a Philippine National Police bus as they arrive at Manila’s International Airport, Philippines early Wednesday Sept. 19, 2012, before being deported with 278 others. The new Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 allows authorities to conduct surveillance and tap into an individual’s conversations if another believes that that person has committed a crime or is about to commit one, according to a lawyer Al Vitangcol. AP PHOTO/AARON FAVILA
MANILA, Philippines—If you feel like someone else is recording your conversation over Skype with a loved one who is based abroad, chances are, you are right.
This is because the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which was recently signed into law, allows authorities to conduct surveillance and tap into an individual’s conversations if another believes that that person has committed a crime or is about to commit one, according to a lawyer.
“There’s a complaint against you, and a court warrant was secured. Then NBI [National Bureau of Investigation] and PNP [Philippine National Police] authorities can tap your online access…Your e-mail (exchanges) they can monitor, your conversations…They are allowed to do that (under this law),” said Al Vitangcol, also one of the directors of the Philippine Computer Society, an organization of information technology professionals, at the Fernandina forum in San Juan city on Wednesday.
Although Vitangcol said that this was “OK” if the complaint against the person was “legitimate,” he opined that this was not the case if the complaint was merely lodged out of whim.
He said that this power provided by the law, then, can be “exploited” by several parties.
“What if I just don’t like you, and I just want to (secure a copy) of your conversations (with someone else)?” Vitangcol asked.
Aside from this, the lawyer said that the new legislation was “in conflict with” the anti-wiretapping law, which prohibits the recording and interception of private conversations.
He added that some of the provisions of the new law were “overreaching.”
He cited as an example Section 2 of the Definition of Terms, which says that the law will apply to “all types of computer-related equipment including but not limited to computers and mobile phones.”
“With that phrase…that means any device and equipment that is electronic in nature can be covered by the law. In that case, even the ordinary things that we use that are really not included (as intended by the law) are included …because of that overreaching phrase…,” he explained.
He cited as another example, Section 6, which states that all crimes “defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, if committed through and with the use of information and communications technologies,” shall also be covered by the provisions of the new legislation.
The new law dictates that the penalties meted against the person who committed these offenses would be “one degree higher,” Vitangcol said.
“Let’s say I hit someone, that’s slight physical injuries. But what if I’m in front of a computer? Instead of punching the person, I hit him with a keyboard. The (good lawyer might use this law against me and say that my penalty should be one degree higher). This particular provision is vague. It just says all crimes…nothing specific,” he explained.
Former Senator Francisco Tatad, for his part, said that the act should have been discussed in public hearings first before it was signed into law.
x x x."
Beware: Online libel included in Cybercrime Law | Infotech News: InterAksyon.com
Beware: Online libel included in Cybercrime Law | Infotech News: InterAksyon.com
"x x x.
"x x x.
(UPDATED 3:00 P.M.) MANILA, Philippines — President Benigno Aquino III has recently signed the cybercrime bill into law, which includes provisions penalizing libel committed online, InterAksyon.com learned Friday.
In a text message, Taguig Rep. Sigfrido Tinga confirmed thatAquino has indeed signed the bill into law on Wednesday.
Tinga is the chairman of the House committee on ICT, and one of the proponents of the bill in the lower house.
A copy of the new law is available here.
Tinga, however, confirmed that a controversial provision, which seeks to penalize libel crimes committed through the Internet, has been included in the final version of the bill.
“As per online defamation, there is no specific [clause] but there is Section 6, which is a catch-all provision which states that all crimes defined and penalized under the revised penal code,” he explained.
The particular clause came from the Senate version of the bill, which was authored by Sen. Edgardo Angara.
The provision was met with contention from various camps that said the particular provision would curtail freedom of expression online.
In the Philippines, libel is a criminal offense. This, despite UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) declaration that the Philippine libel law is excessive and incompatible with international human rights law, in a May 2012 post on the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility website (CMFR-phil.org).
Among the offenses punishable under the new Cybercrime law as enumerated in Chapter II of Republic Act No. 10175 include cybersex, child pornography, cybersquatting and identity theft, spamming or unsolicited commercial communication, computer-related forgery, illegal access to a computer system and/or illegal interception of data, data interference, including intentional alteration or damaging of data; system interference, including damaging or altering computer data or programs as well as the use of viruses, the misuse of devices; and the use, production, sale, procurement, importation, distribution or making available without right of malware, passwords or codes.
Violators could face a punishment of prison mayor or reclusion temporal and/or a fine (between P200,000 to P1,000,000) depending on the offense as stated under the new law.
However, in the case of child pornography, punishment will be in accordance enumerated under Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009. Only this time, the punishment will be a degree higher because the crime was committed using a computer system.
Killer insertion
According to Kabataan Partylist Rep. Raymond Palatino, the “killer insertion” of measures penalizing online libel in the Cybercrime bill is prone to abuse and could be used to “censor online content or to harass critics of the government.”
“The bill threatens the free and democratic conversations of online Filipinos,” Palatino stressed. “Indeed, there are hate speeches and malicious statements circulating on the web. But I prefer that we address these issues by educating the public, especially young people, about the need for responsible or ethical behavior while surfing the Web.”
The Cybercrime bill is the second consecutive ICT-related bill signed by the administration into law, following the enactment of the Data Privacy Act in August.
With the passage of the two bills, the only remaining ICT-related measure left in the halls of Congress is the bill creating the Department of ICT. (With additional report from Jing Garcia)
x x x."
RA 10175; cybercrime prevention act of 2012
[ Republic Act No....
[ Republic Act No. 10175 ] - AN ACT DEFINING CYBERCRIME, PROVIDING FOR THE PREVENTION, INVESTIGATION, SUPPRESSION, AND THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
CHAPTER I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1. Short Title. – This Act shall be known as the “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012″.
Section 2. Declaration of Policy. – The State recognizes the vital role of information and communication industries such as content production, telecommunications, broadcasting, electronic commerce, and data processing, in the nation’s overall social and economic development. The State also recognizes the importance of providing an environment conducive to the development, acceleration, and rational application and exploitation of information and communications technology (ICT) to attain free, easy, and intelligible access to exchange and / or delivery of information, and the need to protect and safeguard the integrity of computer, computer and communications systems, networks, and databases, and the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information, and data stored therein, from all forms of misuse, abuse, and illegal access by making punishable under the law such conduct or conducts. In this light, the State shall adopt sufficient powers to effectively prevent and combat such offenses by facilitating their detection, investigation, and prosecution at both the domestic and international levels, and by providing arrangements for fast and reliable international cooperation.
Section 3. Definition of Terms. – For purposes of this Act, the following terms are hereby defined as follows:
(a) Access refers to the instruction, communication with, storing data in, retrieving data from, or otherwise making use of any resources of a computer system of communication network.
(b) Alteration refers to the modification or change, in form or substance, of an existing computer data or program.
(c) Communication refers to the transmission of information through ICT media, including voice, video, and other forms of data.
(d) Computer refers to an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromechanical, or other data processing or communications device, or grouping of such devices, capable of performing logical, arithmetic, routing, or storage functions and which includes any storage facility, or equipment or communications facility or equipment directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device. It covers any type of computer device including devices with data processing capabilities like mobile phones, smart phones, computer networks, and other devices connected to the Internet.
(e) Computer data refers to any representation of facts, information, or concepts in a form suitable for processing in a computer system including a program suitable for processing in a computer system including a program suitable to cause a computer system to perform a function and includes electronic documents and / or electronic data messages whether stored in local computer systems or online.
(f) Computer program refers to a set of instructions executed by the computer to achieve intended results.
(g) Computer system refers to any device or group of interconnected or related devices, one or more of which pursuant to a program, performs automated processing of data. It covers any type of device with data processing capabilities including, but not limited to, computers and mobile phones. The device consisting of hardware and software may include input, output, and storage components, which may stand-alone or be connected in a network or other similar devices. It also includes computer data storage devices or media.
(h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertake without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law.
(i) Cyber refers to a computer or a computer network, the electronic medium in which online communication takes place.
(j) Critical infrastructure refers to the computer systems, and / or networks, whether physical or virtual, an / or the computers, 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 debilitating impact on security, national or economic security, national public health and safety, or any combination of those matters.
(k) Cybersecurity refers to the collection of tools, policies, risk management approaches, actions, training, best practices, assurance and technologies that can be used to protect the cyber environment and organization and user’s assets.
(l) Database refers to a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts or instructions which are being prepared, processed, or stored or have been prepared, processed or stored in a formalized manner and which are intended for use in a computer system.
(m) Interception refers to listening to, recording, monitoring or surveillance of the content of communications, including procuring of the content of data, either directly, through access and use of a computer system or indirectly, through the use of electronic eavesdropping or tapping devices, at the same time that the communication is occurring.
(n) Service provider refers to:
(1) Any public or private entity that provides to users of its service the ability to communication by means of a computer system, and
(2) Any other entity that processes or stores computer data on behalf of such communication service or users of such service.
(o) Subscriber’s information refers to any information contained in the form of computer data or any other form that is held by a service provider, relating to subscribers of its services other than traffic or content data and by which identity can be established:
(1) The type of communication service used, the technical provisions taken thereto and the period of service;
(2) The subscriber’s identity, postal or geographic address, telephone and other access numbers, any assigned network address, billing, and payment information, available on the basis of the service agreement or arrangement, and
(3) Any other available information on the site of the installation of communication equipment, available on the basis of the service agreement or arrangement.
(p) Traffic data or non-content data refers to any computer data other than the content of the communication including, but not limited to, the communication’s origin, destination, route, time, data, size, duration, or type of underlying service.
CHAPTER II
PUNISHABLE ACTS
Section 4 Cybercrime Offenses. – The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable under this Act:
(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of computer data and systems.
(1) Illegal access – The access to the whole or any part of a computer system without right.
(2) Illegal interception – The interception made by technical means without right of any non-public transmission of computer data to, from, or within a computer system including electromagnetic emissions from a computer system carrying such computer data.
(3) Data Interference – The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion, or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.
(4) System Interference – The intentional alteration or reckless hindering or interference with the functioning of a computer or computer network by inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data or program, electronic document, or electronic data messages, without right or authority, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.
(5) Misuse of devices
(i) The use, production, sale, procurement, importation, distribution, or otherwise making available, without right, of:
(aa) a device, including a computer program, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this Act; or
(bb) 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 the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this Act.
(ii) The possession of an item referred to in paragraphs 5(i)(aa) or (bb) above with
the intent to use said devices for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this section.
(6) Cyber-squatting. The acquisition of domain name over the Internet in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy reputation, and deprive others from the 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.
(b) Computer-related Offenses:
(1) Computer-related Forgery:
(i) The input, alteration, or deletion of 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
(ii) The act of knowingly using computer data, which is the product of computer-related forgery as, defined here, for the purpose of perpetuating a fraudulent or dishonest design.
(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 imposed shall be one (1) degree lower.
(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 if no damage has yet been caused, the penalty imposed shall be one (1) degree lower.
(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.
(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 one
(1) degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775.
(3) Unsolicited Commercial Communications – The transmission of commercial communication with the use of computer system which seek to advertise sell, or offer for sale products and services are prohibited unless:
(1) There is prior affirmative consent from the recipient;
or
(ii) The primary intent of the communication is for service and / or administrative announcements from the sender to its existing users, subscribers or customers; or
(iii) The following conditions are present:
(aa) 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;
(bb) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely disguise the source of the electronic message; and
(cc) 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.
(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.
Section 5. Other Offenses – The following acts shall also constitute an offense:
(a) 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 this Act shall be held liable.
(b) Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime – Any person who willfully attempts to commit any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.
Section 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through, and with the use of information and communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act. Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.
Section 7. Liability under Other Laws. – A prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws.
Chapter III
PENALTIES
Section 8. Penalties. – Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Sections 4(a) and 4(b) of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of prison mayor or a fine of at least Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000) up to a maximum amount commensurate to the damage incurred or both.
Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts under Sections 4(a)(5) shall be punished with imprisonment of prison mayor or a fine of not more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000) or both.
If punishable acts in Section 4(a) are committed against critical infrastructure, the penalty of reclusion temporal or a fine of at least Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000) up to a maximum amount commensurate to the damage incurred or both, shall be imposed.
Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Sections 4(c)(1) of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of prison mayor or a fine of at least Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000) but not exceeding One million pesos (P1,000,000) or both.
Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Sections 4(c)(2) of this Act shall be punished with the penalties as enumerated in Republic Act 9775 or the “Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009″; Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act 9775, if committed through a computer system.
Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Sections 4(c)(3) shall be punished with imprisonment of arresto mayor or a fine of at least Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) but not exceeding Two hundred fifty thousand pesos (P250,000) or both.
Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Sections 5 of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of one (1) degree lower than that of the prescribed penalty for the offense or a fine of at least One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) but not exceeding Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000) or both.
Section 9. Corporate Liability. – When any of the punishable acts 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, who has a leading position within, based on: (a) a power of representation of the juridical person provided the act committed falls within the scope of such authority; (b) an authority to take decisions on behalf of the juridical person. Provided, That the act committed falls within the scope of such authority; or (c) an authority to exercise control within the juridical person, the juridical person shall be held liable for a fine equivalent to at least double the fines imposable in Section 7 up to a maximum of Ten million pesos (P10,000,000).
If the commission of any of the 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 shall be held liable for a fine equivalent to at least double the finds imposable in Section 7 up to a maximum of Five million pesos (P5,000,000).
The liability imposed on the juridical person shall be without prejudice to the criminal liability of the natural person who has committed the offense.
Chapter IV
Enforcement and Implementation
Section 10. Law Enforcement Authorities. The National Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine National Police shall be responsible for the efficient and effective law enforcement of the provisions of this Act. The NBI and the PNP shall organize a cybercrime unit or center manned by special investigators to exclusively handle cases involving violations of this Act.
Section 11. Duties of Law Enforcement Authorities. To ensure that the technical nature of cybercrime and its prevention is given focus and considering the procedures involved for international cooperation, law enforcement authorities specifically the computer or technology crime divisions or units responsible for the investigation of cybercrimes are required to submit timely and regular reports including pre-operation, post operation, and investigation results and such other documents as may be required to the Department of Justice for review and monitoring.
Section 12. Real-time Collection of Traffic Data. – Law enforcement authorities, with due cause, shall be authorized 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.
Traffic data refer only to the communication’s origin, destination, route, time, date, size, duration, or type of underlying service, but not content, nor identities..
All other data to be collected, seized, or disclosed will require a court warrant.
Service providers are required to cooperate and assist law enforcement authorities in the collection or recording of the above-stated information.
The court warrant under this section shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and the showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated herein above has been committed, or is being committed, is about to be committed; (2) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence that will be obtained is essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution or, or to the prevention of any such crimes, and (3) that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.
Section 13. Preservation of Computer Data. The integrity of traffic data and subscriber information relating to communication services provided by a service provider shall be preserved for a minimum of six (6) months period from the date of the transaction. Content data shall be similarly preserved for six (6) months from the date of receipt of the order from law enforcement authorities requiring its preservation.
Law enforcement authorities may order a one-time extension of another six (6) months. Provided, That once computer preserved, transmitted or stored by service provided is used as evidence in a case, the mere furnishing to such service provider of the transmittal document to the Office of the Prosecutor shall be deemed a notification to preserve the computer until the termination of the case.
The service provider ordered to preserve computer data shall keep confidential the order and its compliance.
Section 14. Disclosure of Computer Data. – Law enforcement authorities, upon securing a court warrant, shall issue an order requiring any person or service provider to disclose or submit subscriber’s information, traffic data or relevant data in his / its possession or control within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt of the order in relation to a valid complaint officially docketed and assigned for investigation and the disclosure is necessary and relevant for the purpose of investigation.
Section 15. Search, Seizure, Examination of Computer Data. – Where a search and seizure warrant is properly issue, the law enforcement authorities shall likewise have the following powers and duties.
Within the time period specified in the warrant, to conduct interception, as defined in this Act, and:
(a) To secure a computer system or a computer data storage medium.
(b) To make and retain a copy of those computer data secured.
(c) To maintain the integrity of the relevant stored computer data.
(d) To conduct forensic analysis or examinations of the computer data storage medium; and
(e) To render inaccessible or remove those computer data in the accessed computer or computer and communications network.
Pursuant thereof, the law enforcement authorities may order any person who has knowledge about the functioning of the computer system and the measures to protect and preserve the computer data therein to provide, as is reasonable, the necessary information to enable the undertaking of the search, seizure and examination.
Law enforcement authorities may request for an extension of time to complete the examination of the computer data storage medium and to make a return thereon but in no case for a period longer than thirty (30) days from date of approval by the court.
Section 16. Custody of Computer Data. All computer data, including content and traffic data, examined under a proper warrant shall, within forty-eight (48) hours after the expiration of the period fixed therein, be deposited with the court in a sealed package, and shall be accompanies by an affidavit of the law enforcement authority executing it stating the dates and times covered by the examination, and the law enforcement authority who access the deposit, among other relevant data. The law enforcement authority shall also certify that no duplicates or copies of the whole or any part thereof have been made, or if made, that all such duplicates or copies are included in the package deposited with the court. The package so deposited shall not be opened or the recordings replayed, or used in evidence, or their contents revealed, except upon order of the court, which shall not be granted except upon motion, with due notice and opportunity to be heard to the person or persons whose conversation or communications have been recorded.
Section 17. Destruction of Computer Data. Upon expiration of the periods as provided in Sections 13 and 15, service providers and law enforcement authorities, as the case may be, shall immediately and completely destroy the computer data subject of a preservation and examination.
Section 18. Exclusionary Rule. – Any evidence procured without a valid warrant or beyond the authority of the same shall be inadmissible for any proceeding before any court or tribunal.
Section 19. Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data. – When a computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data.
Section 20. Non-compliance. Failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter IV hereof specifically the orders from law enforcement authorities shall be punished as a violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829 with imprisonment of prison correctional in its maximum period or a fine of One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) or both for each and every non-compliance with an order issued by law enforcement authorities.
Chapter V
Jurisdiction
Section 21. Jurisdiction. 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 situation 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.
Chapter VI
International Cooperation
Section 22. General Principles Relating to International Cooperation. – All relevant international instruments on international cooperation in criminal maters, arrangements agreed on the basis of uniform or reciprocal legislation, and domestic laws, to the widest extent possible for the purposes of investigations or proceedings concerning criminal offenses related to computer systems and data, or for the collection of evidence in electronic form of a criminal offense shall be given full force and effect.
Chapter VII
Competent Authorities
Section 23. Department of Justice (DOJ). There is hereby created an Office of Cybercrime within the DOJ designated as the central authority in all matters relating to international mutual assistance and extradition.
Section 24. Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC). There is hereby created, within thirty (30) days from the effectivity of this Act, an inter-agency body to be known as the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC), under the administrative supervision of the Office of the President, for policy coordination among concerned agencies and for the formulation and enforcement of the national cybersecurity plan.
Section 25. Composition. The CICC shall be headed by the Executive Director of the Information and Communications Technology Office under the Department of Science and Technology as Chairperson with the Director of the NBI as Vice Chairperson; the Chief of the PNP, Head of the DOJ Office of Cybercrime; and one (1) representative from the private sector and academe, as members. The CICC shall be manned by a secretariat of selected existing personnel and representatives from the different participating agencies.
Section 26. Powers and Functions. – The CICC shall have the following powers and functions:
(a) To formulate a national cybersecurity plan and extend immediate assistance for the suppression of real-time commission of cybercrime offenses through a computer emergency response team (CERT).
(b) To coordinate the preparation of appropriate and effective measures to prevent and suppress cybercrime activities as provided for in this Act;
(c) To monitor cybercrime cases being handled by participating law enforcement and prosecution agencies.
(d) To facilitate international cooperation on intelligence, investigations, training, and capacity building related to cybercrime prevention, suppression, and prosecution.
(e) To coordinate the support and participation of the business sector local government units and non-government organizations in cybercrime prevention programs and other related projects.
(f) To recommend the enactment of appropriate laws, issuances, measures, and policies.
(g) To call upon any government agency to render assistance in the accomplishment of the CICC’s mandated tasks and functions.
(h) To perform all other matters related to cybercrime prevention and suppression, including capacity building and such other functions and duties as may be necessary for the proper implementation of this Act.
Chapter VIII
FINAL PROVISIONS
Section 27. Appropriations. – The amount of Fifty mission pesos (P50,000,000) shall be appropriated annually for the implementation of this Act.
Section 28. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – The ICTO-DOST, the DOJ, and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) shall jointly formulate the necessary rules and regulations within ninety (90) days from approval of this Act, for its effective implementation.
Section 29. Separability Clause. If any provision of this Act is held invalid, the other provisions not affected shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 30. Repealing Clause. All laws, decrees, or rules inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. Section 33(a) of Republic Act 8792 or Electronic Commerce Act is hereby modified accordingly.
Section 31. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after the completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
Approved,
(Sgd.) FELICIANO BELMONTE JR.
Speaker of the House
of Representatives
(Sgd.) JUAN PONCE ENRILE
President of the Senate
This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2796 and House Bill No. 5808 was finally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on June 5, 2012 and June 4, 2012 respectively.
(Sgd.) MARILYN B. BARUA-YAP
Secretary General
House of Representatives
(Sgd.) EMMA LIRIO-REYES
Secretary of the Senate
Approved: September 12, 2012
(Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO III
President of the Philippines
[ Republic Act No. 10175 ] - AN ACT DEFINING CYBERCRIME, PROVIDING FOR THE PREVENTION, INVESTIGATION, SUPPRESSION, AND THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
CHAPTER I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1. Short Title. – This Act shall be known as the “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012″.
Section 2. Declaration of Policy. – The State recognizes the vital role of information and communication industries such as content production, telecommunications, broadcasting, electronic commerce, and data processing, in the nation’s overall social and economic development. The State also recognizes the importance of providing an environment conducive to the development, acceleration, and rational application and exploitation of information and communications technology (ICT) to attain free, easy, and intelligible access to exchange and / or delivery of information, and the need to protect and safeguard the integrity of computer, computer and communications systems, networks, and databases, and the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information, and data stored therein, from all forms of misuse, abuse, and illegal access by making punishable under the law such conduct or conducts. In this light, the State shall adopt sufficient powers to effectively prevent and combat such offenses by facilitating their detection, investigation, and prosecution at both the domestic and international levels, and by providing arrangements for fast and reliable international cooperation.
Section 3. Definition of Terms. – For purposes of this Act, the following terms are hereby defined as follows:
(a) Access refers to the instruction, communication with, storing data in, retrieving data from, or otherwise making use of any resources of a computer system of communication network.
(b) Alteration refers to the modification or change, in form or substance, of an existing computer data or program.
(c) Communication refers to the transmission of information through ICT media, including voice, video, and other forms of data.
(d) Computer refers to an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromechanical, or other data processing or communications device, or grouping of such devices, capable of performing logical, arithmetic, routing, or storage functions and which includes any storage facility, or equipment or communications facility or equipment directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device. It covers any type of computer device including devices with data processing capabilities like mobile phones, smart phones, computer networks, and other devices connected to the Internet.
(e) Computer data refers to any representation of facts, information, or concepts in a form suitable for processing in a computer system including a program suitable for processing in a computer system including a program suitable to cause a computer system to perform a function and includes electronic documents and / or electronic data messages whether stored in local computer systems or online.
(f) Computer program refers to a set of instructions executed by the computer to achieve intended results.
(g) Computer system refers to any device or group of interconnected or related devices, one or more of which pursuant to a program, performs automated processing of data. It covers any type of device with data processing capabilities including, but not limited to, computers and mobile phones. The device consisting of hardware and software may include input, output, and storage components, which may stand-alone or be connected in a network or other similar devices. It also includes computer data storage devices or media.
(h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertake without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law.
(i) Cyber refers to a computer or a computer network, the electronic medium in which online communication takes place.
(j) Critical infrastructure refers to the computer systems, and / or networks, whether physical or virtual, an / or the computers, 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 debilitating impact on security, national or economic security, national public health and safety, or any combination of those matters.
(k) Cybersecurity refers to the collection of tools, policies, risk management approaches, actions, training, best practices, assurance and technologies that can be used to protect the cyber environment and organization and user’s assets.
(l) Database refers to a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts or instructions which are being prepared, processed, or stored or have been prepared, processed or stored in a formalized manner and which are intended for use in a computer system.
(m) Interception refers to listening to, recording, monitoring or surveillance of the content of communications, including procuring of the content of data, either directly, through access and use of a computer system or indirectly, through the use of electronic eavesdropping or tapping devices, at the same time that the communication is occurring.
(n) Service provider refers to:
(1) Any public or private entity that provides to users of its service the ability to communication by means of a computer system, and
(2) Any other entity that processes or stores computer data on behalf of such communication service or users of such service.
(o) Subscriber’s information refers to any information contained in the form of computer data or any other form that is held by a service provider, relating to subscribers of its services other than traffic or content data and by which identity can be established:
(1) The type of communication service used, the technical provisions taken thereto and the period of service;
(2) The subscriber’s identity, postal or geographic address, telephone and other access numbers, any assigned network address, billing, and payment information, available on the basis of the service agreement or arrangement, and
(3) Any other available information on the site of the installation of communication equipment, available on the basis of the service agreement or arrangement.
(p) Traffic data or non-content data refers to any computer data other than the content of the communication including, but not limited to, the communication’s origin, destination, route, time, data, size, duration, or type of underlying service.
CHAPTER II
PUNISHABLE ACTS
Section 4 Cybercrime Offenses. – The following acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable under this Act:
(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of computer data and systems.
(1) Illegal access – The access to the whole or any part of a computer system without right.
(2) Illegal interception – The interception made by technical means without right of any non-public transmission of computer data to, from, or within a computer system including electromagnetic emissions from a computer system carrying such computer data.
(3) Data Interference – The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion, or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.
(4) System Interference – The intentional alteration or reckless hindering or interference with the functioning of a computer or computer network by inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data or program, electronic document, or electronic data messages, without right or authority, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.
(5) Misuse of devices
(i) The use, production, sale, procurement, importation, distribution, or otherwise making available, without right, of:
(aa) a device, including a computer program, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this Act; or
(bb) 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 the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this Act.
(ii) The possession of an item referred to in paragraphs 5(i)(aa) or (bb) above with
the intent to use said devices for the purpose of committing any of the offenses under this section.
(6) Cyber-squatting. The acquisition of domain name over the Internet in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy reputation, and deprive others from the 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.
(b) Computer-related Offenses:
(1) Computer-related Forgery:
(i) The input, alteration, or deletion of 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
(ii) The act of knowingly using computer data, which is the product of computer-related forgery as, defined here, for the purpose of perpetuating a fraudulent or dishonest design.
(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 imposed shall be one (1) degree lower.
(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 if no damage has yet been caused, the penalty imposed shall be one (1) degree lower.
(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.
(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 one
(1) degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775.
(3) Unsolicited Commercial Communications – The transmission of commercial communication with the use of computer system which seek to advertise sell, or offer for sale products and services are prohibited unless:
(1) There is prior affirmative consent from the recipient;
or
(ii) The primary intent of the communication is for service and / or administrative announcements from the sender to its existing users, subscribers or customers; or
(iii) The following conditions are present:
(aa) 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;
(bb) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely disguise the source of the electronic message; and
(cc) 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.
(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.
Section 5. Other Offenses – The following acts shall also constitute an offense:
(a) 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 this Act shall be held liable.
(b) Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime – Any person who willfully attempts to commit any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.
Section 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through, and with the use of information and communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act. Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.
Section 7. Liability under Other Laws. – A prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws.
Chapter III
PENALTIES
Section 8. Penalties. – Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Sections 4(a) and 4(b) of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of prison mayor or a fine of at least Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000) up to a maximum amount commensurate to the damage incurred or both.
Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts under Sections 4(a)(5) shall be punished with imprisonment of prison mayor or a fine of not more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000) or both.
If punishable acts in Section 4(a) are committed against critical infrastructure, the penalty of reclusion temporal or a fine of at least Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000) up to a maximum amount commensurate to the damage incurred or both, shall be imposed.
Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Sections 4(c)(1) of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of prison mayor or a fine of at least Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000) but not exceeding One million pesos (P1,000,000) or both.
Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Sections 4(c)(2) of this Act shall be punished with the penalties as enumerated in Republic Act 9775 or the “Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009″; Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act 9775, if committed through a computer system.
Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Sections 4(c)(3) shall be punished with imprisonment of arresto mayor or a fine of at least Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) but not exceeding Two hundred fifty thousand pesos (P250,000) or both.
Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Sections 5 of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of one (1) degree lower than that of the prescribed penalty for the offense or a fine of at least One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) but not exceeding Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000) or both.
Section 9. Corporate Liability. – When any of the punishable acts 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, who has a leading position within, based on: (a) a power of representation of the juridical person provided the act committed falls within the scope of such authority; (b) an authority to take decisions on behalf of the juridical person. Provided, That the act committed falls within the scope of such authority; or (c) an authority to exercise control within the juridical person, the juridical person shall be held liable for a fine equivalent to at least double the fines imposable in Section 7 up to a maximum of Ten million pesos (P10,000,000).
If the commission of any of the 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 shall be held liable for a fine equivalent to at least double the finds imposable in Section 7 up to a maximum of Five million pesos (P5,000,000).
The liability imposed on the juridical person shall be without prejudice to the criminal liability of the natural person who has committed the offense.
Chapter IV
Enforcement and Implementation
Section 10. Law Enforcement Authorities. The National Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine National Police shall be responsible for the efficient and effective law enforcement of the provisions of this Act. The NBI and the PNP shall organize a cybercrime unit or center manned by special investigators to exclusively handle cases involving violations of this Act.
Section 11. Duties of Law Enforcement Authorities. To ensure that the technical nature of cybercrime and its prevention is given focus and considering the procedures involved for international cooperation, law enforcement authorities specifically the computer or technology crime divisions or units responsible for the investigation of cybercrimes are required to submit timely and regular reports including pre-operation, post operation, and investigation results and such other documents as may be required to the Department of Justice for review and monitoring.
Section 12. Real-time Collection of Traffic Data. – Law enforcement authorities, with due cause, shall be authorized 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.
Traffic data refer only to the communication’s origin, destination, route, time, date, size, duration, or type of underlying service, but not content, nor identities..
All other data to be collected, seized, or disclosed will require a court warrant.
Service providers are required to cooperate and assist law enforcement authorities in the collection or recording of the above-stated information.
The court warrant under this section shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and the showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated herein above has been committed, or is being committed, is about to be committed; (2) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence that will be obtained is essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution or, or to the prevention of any such crimes, and (3) that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.
Section 13. Preservation of Computer Data. The integrity of traffic data and subscriber information relating to communication services provided by a service provider shall be preserved for a minimum of six (6) months period from the date of the transaction. Content data shall be similarly preserved for six (6) months from the date of receipt of the order from law enforcement authorities requiring its preservation.
Law enforcement authorities may order a one-time extension of another six (6) months. Provided, That once computer preserved, transmitted or stored by service provided is used as evidence in a case, the mere furnishing to such service provider of the transmittal document to the Office of the Prosecutor shall be deemed a notification to preserve the computer until the termination of the case.
The service provider ordered to preserve computer data shall keep confidential the order and its compliance.
Section 14. Disclosure of Computer Data. – Law enforcement authorities, upon securing a court warrant, shall issue an order requiring any person or service provider to disclose or submit subscriber’s information, traffic data or relevant data in his / its possession or control within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt of the order in relation to a valid complaint officially docketed and assigned for investigation and the disclosure is necessary and relevant for the purpose of investigation.
Section 15. Search, Seizure, Examination of Computer Data. – Where a search and seizure warrant is properly issue, the law enforcement authorities shall likewise have the following powers and duties.
Within the time period specified in the warrant, to conduct interception, as defined in this Act, and:
(a) To secure a computer system or a computer data storage medium.
(b) To make and retain a copy of those computer data secured.
(c) To maintain the integrity of the relevant stored computer data.
(d) To conduct forensic analysis or examinations of the computer data storage medium; and
(e) To render inaccessible or remove those computer data in the accessed computer or computer and communications network.
Pursuant thereof, the law enforcement authorities may order any person who has knowledge about the functioning of the computer system and the measures to protect and preserve the computer data therein to provide, as is reasonable, the necessary information to enable the undertaking of the search, seizure and examination.
Law enforcement authorities may request for an extension of time to complete the examination of the computer data storage medium and to make a return thereon but in no case for a period longer than thirty (30) days from date of approval by the court.
Section 16. Custody of Computer Data. All computer data, including content and traffic data, examined under a proper warrant shall, within forty-eight (48) hours after the expiration of the period fixed therein, be deposited with the court in a sealed package, and shall be accompanies by an affidavit of the law enforcement authority executing it stating the dates and times covered by the examination, and the law enforcement authority who access the deposit, among other relevant data. The law enforcement authority shall also certify that no duplicates or copies of the whole or any part thereof have been made, or if made, that all such duplicates or copies are included in the package deposited with the court. The package so deposited shall not be opened or the recordings replayed, or used in evidence, or their contents revealed, except upon order of the court, which shall not be granted except upon motion, with due notice and opportunity to be heard to the person or persons whose conversation or communications have been recorded.
Section 17. Destruction of Computer Data. Upon expiration of the periods as provided in Sections 13 and 15, service providers and law enforcement authorities, as the case may be, shall immediately and completely destroy the computer data subject of a preservation and examination.
Section 18. Exclusionary Rule. – Any evidence procured without a valid warrant or beyond the authority of the same shall be inadmissible for any proceeding before any court or tribunal.
Section 19. Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data. – When a computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data.
Section 20. Non-compliance. Failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter IV hereof specifically the orders from law enforcement authorities shall be punished as a violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829 with imprisonment of prison correctional in its maximum period or a fine of One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) or both for each and every non-compliance with an order issued by law enforcement authorities.
Chapter V
Jurisdiction
Section 21. Jurisdiction. 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 situation 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.
Chapter VI
International Cooperation
Section 22. General Principles Relating to International Cooperation. – All relevant international instruments on international cooperation in criminal maters, arrangements agreed on the basis of uniform or reciprocal legislation, and domestic laws, to the widest extent possible for the purposes of investigations or proceedings concerning criminal offenses related to computer systems and data, or for the collection of evidence in electronic form of a criminal offense shall be given full force and effect.
Chapter VII
Competent Authorities
Section 23. Department of Justice (DOJ). There is hereby created an Office of Cybercrime within the DOJ designated as the central authority in all matters relating to international mutual assistance and extradition.
Section 24. Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC). There is hereby created, within thirty (30) days from the effectivity of this Act, an inter-agency body to be known as the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC), under the administrative supervision of the Office of the President, for policy coordination among concerned agencies and for the formulation and enforcement of the national cybersecurity plan.
Section 25. Composition. The CICC shall be headed by the Executive Director of the Information and Communications Technology Office under the Department of Science and Technology as Chairperson with the Director of the NBI as Vice Chairperson; the Chief of the PNP, Head of the DOJ Office of Cybercrime; and one (1) representative from the private sector and academe, as members. The CICC shall be manned by a secretariat of selected existing personnel and representatives from the different participating agencies.
Section 26. Powers and Functions. – The CICC shall have the following powers and functions:
(a) To formulate a national cybersecurity plan and extend immediate assistance for the suppression of real-time commission of cybercrime offenses through a computer emergency response team (CERT).
(b) To coordinate the preparation of appropriate and effective measures to prevent and suppress cybercrime activities as provided for in this Act;
(c) To monitor cybercrime cases being handled by participating law enforcement and prosecution agencies.
(d) To facilitate international cooperation on intelligence, investigations, training, and capacity building related to cybercrime prevention, suppression, and prosecution.
(e) To coordinate the support and participation of the business sector local government units and non-government organizations in cybercrime prevention programs and other related projects.
(f) To recommend the enactment of appropriate laws, issuances, measures, and policies.
(g) To call upon any government agency to render assistance in the accomplishment of the CICC’s mandated tasks and functions.
(h) To perform all other matters related to cybercrime prevention and suppression, including capacity building and such other functions and duties as may be necessary for the proper implementation of this Act.
Chapter VIII
FINAL PROVISIONS
Section 27. Appropriations. – The amount of Fifty mission pesos (P50,000,000) shall be appropriated annually for the implementation of this Act.
Section 28. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – The ICTO-DOST, the DOJ, and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) shall jointly formulate the necessary rules and regulations within ninety (90) days from approval of this Act, for its effective implementation.
Section 29. Separability Clause. If any provision of this Act is held invalid, the other provisions not affected shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 30. Repealing Clause. All laws, decrees, or rules inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. Section 33(a) of Republic Act 8792 or Electronic Commerce Act is hereby modified accordingly.
Section 31. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after the completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
Approved,
(Sgd.) FELICIANO BELMONTE JR.
Speaker of the House
of Representatives
(Sgd.) JUAN PONCE ENRILE
President of the Senate
This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2796 and House Bill No. 5808 was finally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on June 5, 2012 and June 4, 2012 respectively.
(Sgd.) MARILYN B. BARUA-YAP
Secretary General
House of Representatives
(Sgd.) EMMA LIRIO-REYES
Secretary of the Senate
Approved: September 12, 2012
(Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO III
President of the Philippines