7 Disyembre,2024 Sabado
24 days to 2025, Merry Christmas
Happy 21st anniversary, Servants of God in Jesus Christ Christian Ministries Incorporated, Rev. Nestor Sadim, Rev. Manuel Soliman, Director Jorge Lopez
No to Divorce!!!
Get well soon Nanay Angelita Santiago-Lopez
No to SOGIE bill
PM for any hospital discharge problem
Sedition, defamation vs Vloggers – NBI
By Nidz Godino
“I want to remind public, especially vloggers, that our right to freedom of expression is not absolute…it has limitations,” National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Jaime Santiago said “if you are inciting to sedition or engaging in excessive defamation without any basis, we can investigate and file charges.”
Vloggers may face legal consequences if they issue statements that incite to sedition or “excessively” defame people without basis, Santiago said.
He also said people whose private online conversations are leaked to public may file cybercrime complaints.
Posting screenshots of private messages on social media to defame someone can be ground for cybercrime complaint, falling under Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, can be filed with NBI Cybercrime Division or Philippine National Police Anti-Cybercrime Group, he said.
“It depends on affected individual whose private conversations were made public if they want to hold accountable those who posted their private messages…it’s up to them, and they can file complaints,” Santiago said.
Santiago said NBI conducted multiple operations related to unauthorized posting of private messages, including those involving disputes over debts.
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 penalizes offenses such as illegal access, data interference and online libel, among others.
Santiago’s comments came after NBI received letter on Wednesday from Surigao del Norte Rep. Robert Ace Barbers, who urged investigative agencies to take stance against cybercrimes.
Meanwhile, in 18-page decision penned by Associate Justice Mario Lopez, Supreme Court Second Division dismissed appeal filed by convict Eul Vincent Rodriguez who was convicted of qualified trafficking in persons under Republic Act 9208 or Anti-Trafficking of Persons Act of 2003.
“As chat logs and videos presented by Rodriguez were submitted as evidence to assess his criminal liability for qualified trafficking, his right to privacy was not violated,” Supreme Court (SC) ruled online chat logs and videos can be admitted as evidence in court without violating right to privacy, if used to determine whether crime has been committed.
Based on court records, Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force of Region 7 began investigating Rodriguez in 2013 after receiving tip from United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement of his activities related to offering nude shows, some involving minors, in exchange for money.
PO3 Jerry Gambi said Rodriguez used decoy account to communicate with Rodriguez across various online platforms. He also recorded their correspondence.
His initial investigation showed Rodriguez offered nude shows in exchange for money. One of the nude shows involved Rodriguez’s minor cousins, activity Gambi ordered stopped after having portion recorded.
Following this, entrapment operation was set wherein Gambi told Rodriguez that foreigner friend was staying at certain hotel. Rodriguez offered to have 14-year-old meet them at the hotel to do live nude show.
Rodriguez was arrested and charged after accepting marked money from foreigner who was also police confidential informant.
Regional trial court convicted Rodriguez and Court of Appeals affirmed decision. Rodriguez went to SC, saying pieces of evidence were inadmissible as these violated his data privacy.
But SC also upheld decision, saying videos and recordings of chat logs of Rodriguez’s conversations with Gambi can be admitted as evidence.
It said videos and chat logs were presented as evidence to show Rodriguez’s method of reaching out to foreigners through Skype or Facebook and offering minors for sexual exploitation.
Rodriguez was sentenced to life imprisonment and fined P2 million. He was also ordered to pay P600,000 in damages, with legal interest of six percent per annum from finality of judgment, until full payment.
ISKUP! 