SUPREME COURT, DINECRIMINALIZE NA BA ANG ONLINE LIBEL? TIKTOKnatin: https://www.tiktok.com/@batasnatin https://www.tiktok.com/@attylibayan Eto po bagong FB natin para sa videos: https://www.facebook.com/BATASnatin-107860591437195 https://www.facebook.com/Atty-Ranny-Randolf-B-Libayan-154012243457531 Alternate YT channel po for livestreams: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCskZGSV52krMvXgb8OXXx1g WEBSITE: https://batasnatin.com/ LAW FIRM: https://firm.batasnatin.com/ FACEBOOK PAGE: https://www.facebook.com/BATASnatin/ INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/batasnatin/ YOUTUBE CHANNEL: https://youtube.com/BATASnatinLive TWITTER: https://twitter.com/BATASnatin LAWYERS: Atty. Kristina Louise Magalong Atty. Ranny Randolf B. Libayan FIRM ADDRESS: #31 Gen. Luna St., Tuktukan, Taguig City, NCR (Across Taguig City Hall) Email: BATASnatin@gmail.com Telephone nos: +63915-954-6080 (+632)359-4203 We are a full-service Law Firm We handle and are experienced in liti

Video Transcript / Subtitles:( AI generated. About AI subtitles » )

* AI ("Artificial Intelligence") subtitles on Tagalog.com are generated using "Whisper" by OpenAI (the same company that created ChatGPT and DallE2). Results and accuracy may vary.
* The subtitles do include errors occasionally and should only be used as a tool to help with your listening practice.
* You can request this website to create a transcript for a video if one doesn't already exist by clicking the "Request AI Subtitles" button below a video. Transcribing usually takes 30-40% of the length of a video to complete if there are no other videos in the queue. For example, a 21 minute video will take 7-8 minutes to transcribe.
* Running a super fast cloud GPU server to do these transcriptions does cost money. If you have the desire and financial ability, consider becoming a patron to support these video transcriptions, and the other tools and apps built by Tagalog.com

... All right yan magandang araw mga kabatas natin at welcome sa isang live stream. Mga kabatas natin sa nagtatanong na may sagot si Fabri sa akin. Hindi po yung sagot, re-iterate niya lang ang mga sinabi niya noon, ginawan niya lang ng video, ang text na sinabi niya noon. So hindi po yung sagot okay?

... Kasi ang daming nagkiklaim na it was decriminalized. It was not decriminalized mga kabatas natin. Ganto rin kasi yung nangyaring wrong impression noon sa BP22. Ang nangyari noon ang SC naglabas siya ng isang statement kung saan sinabi nila na meron ng preference of imposable penalties sa BP22.

At pre-refer mga kabatas natin ng SC noon na kapag magpapataw kayo ng penalty sa BP22 o yung bouncing checks law, ang preferred penalty ay fine. Fine, yan ang sinabi niya. So fine yung nag-issue ng talbog na cheque.

Fine is being tried as a criminal case. Kailangan siyempre actually madecriminalize yan through a law. Ito rin mga kabatas natin, alam naman natin na ang SC hindi rin siya nagpapasan ng batas, nag-i-interpret lamang siya ng batas.

So fine, pwede niyong i-impose yung fine lang at huwag niyo ipakulong sa online libel. Kasi mga kabatas natin, fine is also a penalty. Sabi dito, a court may sentence an accused found guilty of online libel to payment of fine only rather than imprisonment.

May nakalagay dyan. Ibig sabihin it's still upon the discretion of the court na nagbibigay ng hatol. And this is only directory sa SC. Kumbaga yung mga judges, siyempre ang tinitingalan ng mga yan tungkol sa mga gagtong klase na bagay-bagay ay SC. At least siyempre supreme nga.

Yan yung pinakasupreme. So sabi niya dito na pwedeng fine only rather than imprisonment. Pagtitignan niyo hindi pa rin siya nag-decriminalize kasi nga guilty sabi. If you are found guilty, tandaan natin saan ba nagkakaroon ng guilty or not guilty sa criminal cases lamang.

Okay. Ngayon sabi niya ng ganyan.

Tandaan niyo mga kapatid natin, si Raffy Tulfo, convicted din siya ng libel. Fine rin lang yung pinataw sa kanya doon sa kaso ni Guy. So noon pa man, meron na yan. So alam natin na pwedeng i-impose lamang ay fine and not imprisonment.

Okay. Pero ito kasi mga kapatid natin, what's the difference between this and yung libel ni Raffy Tulfo? Yung libel ni Raffy Tulfo it's not online libel. Ito mga kapatid natin this is online libel o yung tinatawag nilang cyber libel. Okay? Cyber libel.

Okay. So sinabi nila na ito nga, corrupt itong si Asec Carpio. Sa pamamagitan nito, pagkuhan ng mga pabor at pag-delay ng release ng sanitary and phytosanitary import clearance.

So na-found siya na guilty beyond reasonable doubt tapos P50,000. Okay? Yung fine sa kanya. So Liman nagbayad ng fine hindi na nag-appeal. Pero nag-appeal ang Solicitor General mga kapatid natin.

Sinabi na yung fine only na penalty, hindi tama. Okay? Deny ang petition ng CA, sinabi na tama ang Regional Trial Court. Ngayon, yung Supreme Court naman mga kapatid natin, sinabi nga dito on fine as an alternative penalty for online libel, okay lang yan sabi niya.

Kasi nakalagay nito, prison correctional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from P40,000 to P1,200,000. Okay?

So na-appeal ang Trial Court nung sinabi na ang tanging penalty lamang ay fine kasi ang nakalagay diyan ay only. Okay? Sabi ni Mang Vision P50,000 lang at D500,000. Sorry, P500,000 ba yung sinabi ko. Pero P50,000. Okay? P50,000 lang yung fine niya.

Dapat sa traditional libel pwede ang fine only sabi niya. For online libel, the court found that people erroneously assume that only imprisonment may be increased or decreased by degrees under the RPC and that thus imprisonment is the mandatory penalty for online libel. Yan yung sinasabi nila dito. Ito ang argument nila.

So pwedeng paglaroin kasi. Ito kasi mga kabatas natin, yung fine P40,000 to P1,200,000. So pwede nilang kunin dito.

Again, the penalty for online libel which is one higher degree. Ito yung sinasabi ko sa inyo. Pumasok kasi ito sa Republic Act 101.75. So mga kabatas natin, yung penalty ng traditional libel umangat ng 1 degree. Okay? Tapos dadagdaga mo lang ng P300,000 to the maximum amount for traditional libel.

Ito yung sinasabi ng Supreme Court. Does the maximum amount of the fine for online libel shall be P1,500,000 with the minimum amount of P40,000 and changed in accordance with Article 75 of the revised Penal Code. Ngayon, pag online libel ang kaso, it's P40,000 to P1,500,000 na.

Kapag traditional libel lang P40,000 to P1,200,000 yan. Okay? Ngayon, sabi niya P50,000 yung sentensya niya so it is within the range of fine imposable by law.

Okay. Conflict between Cybercrime Prevention Act and its implementing rules. Sabi bla bla bla bla, the court ruled that the provision in the Cybercrime Prevention Act which refers to the penalty provided in the RPC as amended in 2017 must apply. Okay.

Thus for Suleiman who committed the crime of online libel in 2018, the penalty as amended in 2017 shall also apply. So mga kabatas natin, hinarmonize na dito at nagkaroon na ng declaration or interpretation of the law yung Supreme Court para hindi na malito yung mga tao. Okay?

Tapos sinabi rin dito, the court held that AZ-08-2008 which sets a rule of preference for imposing fines instead of imprisonment in libel cases does not supplant the legislative intent behind the imposition of a higher degree of penalty in online libel.

So mga kabatas natin, ito kasi libel cases syempre, yung online libel, libel pa rin. So preferred na imposable penalty ay fine. In fact, with due difference to prevailing statute, it is careful to emphasize that it does not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty.

So hindi pa rin ito tinanggal yung imprisonment. Pwede ka pa rin makulong sa cyber libel. Okay? Pero ang preference ng penalty, fine muna. Okay?

Sabing ganyan, yung mga principles daw sa AZ-08-2008 in relation to libel generally ay pasok din sa online libel. Okay? Ngayon, well okay naman na itong mga ito. Dito na sa dulo.

Hence, there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in imposing on Suleiman a penalty of fine only. Okay?

Sabi dito, attorney, can imprisonment be converted to fine? Opo, yan po yung tinatawag nilang subsidiary penalty. Okay?

Ito, si I'm Not Robot. Sinagot ko na yan kanina. May sagot na daw si Fabrizio tanong mo about reckless driving. Wala siyang sagot. Inulit niya lang yung mga sinagot ko na. Okay?

Panoorin niyo yung video ko na last na sinagot ko yung mga sinabi niya na inulit niya lang after. Walang bago. Walang bago. Okay? Hindi yun sagot. Yung dati na sinabi niya bago ko sinagot yun, inulit niya lang.

Okay? Ginawan niya lang ng video, sabi ni Ricol. I'm Not Robot. Hindi yun sagot. Reiterate lang ni Fabri. Yung dati niya sinabi. Ginawan lang ng video. Wala. So, hindi yun sagot. Okay? Walang sagot doon. Wala siyang bagong binanggit doon.

Tapos ito. Tandaan niyo yung mga ina-argue niya doon. Issuance of a warrant. Samantalang ang usapan doon sa kaso, warrantless arrest.

Papakita ko sa inyo yung sinand ni ano ha. May sinand sa akin si Ricol. Okay? Ito.

Tapos inulit niya yung sinabi ko dito sa Cristobal. There was no valid search incidental to a wrongful arrest. Kasi nga there was no crime being committed.

Tapos sabi niya, the case of Cristobal is strikingly similar to the case of Luz v. Pipol.

Red-red-red pa siya dito mga kapatas natin. Pero pag titignan niyo, ang tinutukoy niya dito under the rules of court na at hindi yung Luz v. Pipol. Kasi nga nire-rescue niya lang yung sarili niya.

Doon sa rules of court, yung warrant of arrest daw hindi daw kailangan i-issue. Bakit may warrant of arrest ba na i-issue sa kaso na yun? Wala.

Ang usapan dito, warrantless arrest. Ang warrantless arrest, if a crime has just been committed or a crime is being committed, hindi yan yung issue.

Ang layo. Kaya tapos sasabihin niya naman dito. It may be stated as a corollary that neither can a warrantless arrest be made for such an offense. Nope.

We are talking about existence of a crime fabri. We are not talking about issuance of a warrant of arrest. Whether or not a crime exists. Kasi if a crime exists, there can be a valid arrest based on the definition of a valid warrantless arrest.

Oh my goodness. Panoorin nyo nalang yung dating video ko. Pareho lang. Tingnan nyo. Pinabago-bago niya na colorant. Oh my goodness. Ang layo. Ang layo. Di na-divert na.

Pag hindi mo talaga alam, kahit simple logic lang, parang iisipin mo na may punto siyang sinasabi pero wala. Kasi issuance of warrant of arrest na yung sinasabi niya tapos wala rin namang issuance of warrant of arrest doon sa strikingly similar case na loose versus people.

Di ba? Sabi niya, Sir Libay, hindi ka daw makamove on kay Pisco. Eh madami pa siyang kailangan sagutin. Walang move on move on dito. Di ba ang purpose ko at purpose ni Fabri? Magturo ng batas. Then let's do it. Let's teach the people. Di ba? Simple.

Okay. Yan. Maraming salamat mga kapatas natin at syempre tulad ng lagi yung sinasabi, matulog po tayo ng mahimbing dahil alam natin na yung natutulog ng mahimbing, siya yung lagi yung panalo. Paalam po. Pansamantala.