00:42.7
para daw hindi kayo kasuhan
00:44.4
Pero so far, wala pa namang nag-sorry ng small vloggers mga kabatas natin
00:48.0
Tapos, binabatch by batch na sila
00:51.5
Batch 1 daw, yung sila kayo, Teacher Mark Reacts, itong sina Apoluna
00:58.2
Sino pa ba? Sina Direk Freddy
01:00.1
Sino pa ba? Ito, si Mang Rene Sacalam
01:03.3
Ganun mga kabatas natin
01:06.8
So, let's talk about cyber libel
01:09.5
Crash course, mabilisan lang
01:11.5
Umpisa tayo doon sa identifiability
01:15.1
Okay, for cyber libel or for cyber
01:18.0
Ito kasi yung pinakamadali dito, mga kabatas natin
01:21.2
Tapos, ito rin kasi relate ito doon sa death wish ni Rafi Tulfo sa akin
01:28.2
Kaya kapag varied yung mga kabatas natin
01:33.6
Hindi naman importante kasi sa cyber libel
01:35.9
na i-mention mo yung pangalan ng tao
01:40.7
ang importante dyan pwede yung i-identify yung tao
01:48.7
At ma-identify ng ibang tao
01:52.9
Dito mga kabatas natin
01:54.6
at least one third person
01:55.9
Tignan nyo ito mga kabatas natin ha
01:58.0
Sabi niya, unless it appears that the description of the person referred to in the defamatory publication
02:04.0
was sufficiently clear that at least one-third person would have understood the description as relating to him.
02:12.8
Isipin niyo mga kabatas natin, one-third person lang ha.
02:23.6
Kasi ang pinapalusot nila, hindi daw ako yun.
02:28.0
Kaya hindi ko ni-screenchat, binidyo ko yung live chat at makikita nyo kung ilan tao doon
02:37.6
ang nag-mention na ako yung dine-death wish ni Rafi Tulfo.
02:42.4
Ano ang requirement mga kabatas natin ng batas natin?
02:47.8
At least one-third person lang. Isang tao lang.
02:56.6
Would have understood.
02:58.0
Would have understood the description as relating to him.
03:00.3
It is not sufficient that the plaintiff in the action should have recognized himself as the person intended in libel.
03:08.6
With the requirement of identifiability is already complied with even if just one other person identifies the plaintiff
03:17.8
as the subject of the defamatory words, it is material for purposes of plaintiff's recovery and or author's conviction.
03:28.0
So, yan ang isang elemento. Identifiability.
03:31.6
Okay? So, goods na tayo doon, ha?
03:34.3
Goods na tayo doon.
03:38.1
May namang rene sa...
03:39.2
Pakiuna na po si Ann Abrano kasi mas malaki na subs niya sa akin.
03:42.7
Ako, extra small vlogger pa rin.
03:50.6
Kawawa ka naman, Mang Renesa Kalam.
03:56.0
Ilan na bang subscribers ni Ano?
03:59.8
Pupunta tayo sa elements, mga kabatas natin, no?
04:06.4
Libel is defined as public and malicious imputation of a crime or of a vice or defect,
04:14.3
real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance
04:19.4
tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person
04:25.3
or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
04:29.8
Mga kabatas natin,
04:31.5
kapag ikaw ba ay nag-react,
04:35.1
tapos yung reaction mo sa isang bagay na ginawa ni Rafi Tulfo,
04:39.1
hindi na gustuhan ni Rafi Tulfo,
04:47.9
Pinagmumura niya.
04:49.0
Pinakulong niya ang isang tao nang walang due process.
04:52.9
Inuari, ginawa niya yun.
04:58.0
Hindi mo nagustuhan.
05:01.2
Nag-death wish siya sa isang tao.
05:05.2
Kay Atty. Libayan.
05:09.8
Tapos si Atty. Libayan,
05:12.8
hindi niya nagustuhan yung ginawa ni Rafi Tulfo.
05:16.7
Dahil doon, meron siyang na-receive ng mga actual death threats.
05:24.6
Ibig sabihin ba nun?
05:28.0
May malicious imputation ako kay Rafi Tulfo
05:31.2
ng isang crime, vice or defect, real or imaginary
05:36.4
or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance
05:41.4
tending to cause the dishonor?
05:44.6
Hindi ba siya yung nag-cause na ng dishonor sa sarili niya?
05:50.6
Siya ang nag-cause na ng discredit sa sarili niya?
05:54.0
Siya ang nag-cause na ng contempt sa sarili niya?
05:57.3
Di ba dahil wini-wish niya na mamatay ang isang tao?
06:04.5
Kasi sinabi ni Atty. Tikman
06:22.5
Criticism, di ba?
06:23.7
Ito, for an imputation to be libelous, the following requisites must concur.
06:30.9
It must be defamatory.
06:35.4
In the first place, masama yung ginawa mo, boy.
06:47.4
It must be malicious.
06:49.1
How is it malicious when you are reacting to something that is bad?
06:53.7
At least one-third person will identify.
07:09.4
Wala nang problema.
07:14.1
It must be given publicly.
07:16.0
And the victim must be identifiable.
07:20.7
Very basic naman.
07:23.7
Ito ang maganda rin natin pagtuunan na pansin.
07:28.6
According to jurisprudence,
07:30.4
in determining whether a statement is defamatory,
07:33.4
the words used are to be construed in their entirety.
07:37.0
So yung buo na sinasabi mo,
07:39.7
yun ang titignan.
07:42.2
Hindi porke may nabanggit ka na isang salita
07:47.9
doon ka na magkoconcentrate.
07:50.3
Ano ba yung kabuuan ng sinasabi mo?
07:53.7
Kasi ang ginagawa nila,
08:00.2
pinapahid nila sa akin yung mga baho
08:02.6
na ginawa ng sarili nilang vlogger.
08:12.0
It should be in its entirety.
08:15.8
And should be taken in their plain, natural, and ordinary meaning.
08:23.7
Huwag sobrang stretch.
08:31.1
And let's go back to reactions.
08:34.4
If they will react to something that is wrong that you did,
08:50.6
Hindi nila gusto yung pag-death wish mo sa isang tao.
08:53.7
Okay, let's say na-confuse yung death wish sa death threat
08:59.0
dahil nag-death wish ka sa isang tao.
09:05.4
How can you impute malice there?
09:07.4
How can it be malicious?
09:11.3
When in the first place,
09:13.1
the wrongdoing came from you.
09:24.1
Gawain galing sa bibig mo sa pagkatao mo,
09:28.7
ikaw yung gumawa nun.
09:32.5
And if people find what you did wrong,
09:40.2
it caused dishonor,
09:42.7
and contempt to you,
09:44.2
kasalanan mo yun.
09:49.5
It's your freaking fault.
10:23.7
Yung probable cause ng cyber libel laban sa mga small loggers.
10:40.1
Second element, sabi niya.
10:41.9
Reading the first element,
10:42.9
the corn find the imputation article,
10:44.8
si Doling Kawatan.
10:46.7
Sinong nagsasabi?
10:52.5
Sino nagsasabi nun?
10:55.9
At ito ha, mga kabatas natin.
10:58.6
Doon sa ating daily dose
11:00.1
of Rafi Tulfo in action,
11:07.2
na we are giving examples
11:11.1
sa mga Tulfonatics
11:13.7
para hindi nila pamarisan yung idol nila.
11:18.9
So kapag binabalik natin
11:20.5
yung mga sinasabi ni Rafi Tulfo
11:23.6
that is Rafi Tulfo's
11:24.9
or those are Rafi Tulfo's words.
11:30.2
Kasi ang problema natin
11:31.9
sa mga Tulfonatics,
11:33.7
kapag si Rafi Tulfo ang gumawa
11:35.5
ng hindi maganda sa kapwa niya,
11:39.8
Pag binalik sa kanya
11:41.3
kay Rafi Tulfo yun,
11:43.1
pag ganon ang nangyari,
11:49.7
E pag titignan nyo,
11:51.2
and example lang naman yung ginawa
11:53.9
o ginagawa ni Rafi Tulfo sa kanya,
11:59.3
ngayon mapriso ka.
12:06.0
Sabi ni Cosmo Defender,
12:08.7
bad examples rewarded
12:14.1
They are defended.
12:28.0
The rule is the defamatory remarks
12:30.0
and comments on the conduct
12:31.2
or acts of public officers
12:32.9
which are related to their discharge
12:34.7
of their official duties
12:35.9
will not constitute libel
12:37.2
if the defendant proves the truth
12:39.2
of the imputation.
12:42.1
Ito yung sinasabi ko sa inyo,
12:44.1
na truth may be a defense.
12:48.3
Pag public official yan.
12:54.4
upon the private character
12:55.5
of the public officer
12:56.6
on matters which are not related
12:58.8
of their official functions
12:59.9
may constitute libel.
13:07.8
Sige, sasabihin nila,
13:09.2
paano yung asawa?
13:10.2
Paano yung asawa?
13:18.8
yung usapang asawa na yun?
13:21.2
Dahil may finial na kaso
13:24.3
kay Rafi Tulfo noon.
13:29.0
ang nangyari kasi
13:30.0
hindi niya diniclare
13:33.6
Yung unang nag-file ha,
13:42.2
Anong sinabi nila doon?
13:46.3
Misrepresentation.
13:47.2
Fraudulent misrepresentation.
13:49.4
Doon sa Certificate of Candidacy.
13:55.6
Because it is in relation
13:56.8
to his qualifications
13:57.9
or to her qualifications.
14:08.7
Private-private kayo.
14:13.4
to his qualifications.
14:22.1
yung kanyang pagiging Amerikano
14:24.1
o kaya Filipino citizen.
14:27.7
Qualifications din yun.
14:30.9
public officer niya?
14:43.9
Madali lang naman
14:44.9
i-clear yung airing yun eh.
14:46.2
Sabihin niya lang naman yung totoo eh.
14:53.4
itong kay duling-duling na ito,
14:54.9
mga kabatas natin,
14:56.6
acquitted naman siya dito.
14:58.9
Ang naging issue dito,
15:00.0
mga kabatas natin,
15:00.8
hindi na patunayan
15:01.7
lahat ng elemento
15:10.5
Hindi na-identify
15:29.0
A more recent application
15:30.3
of the principle.
15:32.0
mga kabatas natin.
15:32.9
Ito rin kasi yung
15:34.4
magandang jurisprudence,
15:38.8
mga kabatas natin,
15:40.5
sa sinasabi nilang
15:41.4
libel din sa akin,
15:44.5
file defender na yun.
15:56.3
A more recent application,
16:05.4
Such third person,
16:07.0
while the requirement
16:08.0
of identifiability
16:09.1
is already complied with,
16:10.7
even if just one person
16:11.9
identifies the plaintiff
16:14.1
of the defamatory words,
16:16.0
for purposes of the plaintiff's
16:18.4
author's conviction
16:20.1
how such third person
16:22.7
between the writing
16:23.8
and the plaintiff.
16:25.0
So, dapat may connection.
16:27.5
Kasi kahit sinabi nung isang tao
16:32.6
Yung inaano sa akin,
16:34.0
sinasabi nga nila daw
16:35.0
na tinawag ko daw
16:38.1
na PDF file protector.
16:41.1
Hindi ko nga siya kilala
16:42.2
nung panahon na yun.
16:45.5
So, paano ka makakagawa
16:49.5
tinawag ko daw siya
16:50.7
na PDF file connection
16:52.0
o PDF file protector
16:54.1
ni hindi ko nga siya kilala?
16:57.3
Such third person's
16:58.2
recognition must be
16:59.1
anchored in some description
17:00.5
intrinsic to the writing
17:03.8
extrinsic evidence.
17:06.5
Paano nyo sasabihin
17:10.0
Paano nyo i-coconnect
17:12.2
ni hindi ko nga siya kilala?
17:18.8
there is no anchor
17:19.6
apart from the auditory
17:20.7
similarities between
17:22.1
Doling and Garcia's
17:30.3
A more recent application
17:33.5
Diaz versus People.
17:37.9
the subject article
17:38.7
which was published
17:40.0
imputed a certain
17:41.6
the characteristics
17:42.8
of being a sexual pervert
17:45.3
lascivious and immoral habits.
17:48.5
in the case claimed
17:49.3
that she was the person
17:50.2
described in the article
17:52.0
because her screen name
17:53.0
was Patricia Santillan
17:57.9
who was explicitly
18:05.5
similar to this case
18:07.2
that she recognized
18:08.1
mis-ess to be the complainant.
18:10.4
since there was not
18:12.6
linking the complainant
18:14.5
apart from the fact
18:16.4
that her screen name
18:18.8
that starts with S,
18:19.9
the court acquitted
18:21.3
they're in for libel.
18:27.1
pinapahid na naman nila eh.
18:29.0
PDF file protector.
18:30.4
PDF file protector.
18:33.1
Inaako na nila lahat.
18:38.7
someone who I don't know?
18:49.9
The last element of libel
18:53.1
is that the victim
18:54.7
or unidentifiable
18:56.7
from the contents
18:57.6
of the libelous article.
18:59.1
In order to maintain
19:03.1
although it is not necessary
19:04.6
that the person be named.
19:07.1
if by intrinsic reference
19:09.0
the allusion is apparent
19:10.6
or if the publication
19:14.7
and circumstances
19:15.9
from which others
19:17.1
reading the article
19:18.1
may know the person.
19:23.1
the person alluded to.
19:27.0
by extraneous circumstances
19:28.2
so that those knowing
19:30.0
could and did understand
19:33.7
Kangkol vs. Cable News
19:36.9
American and Lyons
19:38.8
that the requirement
19:40.5
where a third person
19:42.2
or could identify
19:43.2
the party billified
19:57.4
There should be a basis
19:58.5
on why you are the one.
20:19.2
Sabi ni Mantem niyong
20:20.2
the false statement
20:21.2
must harm the reputation
20:22.3
of the person or entity.
20:24.1
in the form of damage
20:25.1
of one's character,
20:26.5
or standing in the community.
21:00.0
Tandaan niyo dito
21:01.1
mga kabatas natin ha.
21:05.6
The publication contains
21:07.7
matters of description
21:09.1
or reference to facts
21:11.0
and circumstances
21:12.0
from which others reading
21:13.5
the article may know
21:15.0
the person alluded to.
21:19.2
Kailangan ba may binanggit
21:45.4
Yung fact ba na na-identify ako
21:47.5
o ay identifiable ako
21:49.8
nag-comment ng gano'n.
21:54.2
Kahit walang binanggit
21:56.2
ibig sabihin hindi na ako.
22:00.1
Yung lalaki-lalaki
22:01.6
na ginawa ni Rafi Tulfo
22:03.1
hindi niya binanggit
22:06.6
ibig sabihin hindi ako yun.
22:14.0
hindi ba pwede attorney?
22:15.6
Sabi ni Mang Rene
22:19.1
dagdag sa ligtas points ko.
22:24.0
ang ligtas points dito.
22:26.2
So dapat mag-sorry ka
22:49.3
Attorney sabi po ni Jeshay TV
22:51.5
at nabasura ang kaso
22:52.9
pwede mag-counter
22:53.7
so ang mga vloggers.
22:56.2
ikaw naman teacher Mark
22:59.1
mabasura yung kaso.
23:09.2
mga kapatid natin
23:10.0
at syempre tulad na lagi
23:13.9
na yung natutulog na mahimbing
23:15.2
siya yung lagi yung panalo.
