Close
 


CYBER LIBEL CRASH COURSE PARA SA MALILIIT NA VLOGGERS
Hide Subtitles
Click any subtitle word to view Tagalog.com dictionary results.
Computer Shortcuts: Left / Right arrows to jump 2 seconds back or forward. +Enter or Space to toggle Play/Pause button. Full Screen Mode
CRASH COURSE TO CYBER LIBEL PARA SA MALILIIT NA VLOGGERS 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, NCRa (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 litigating many kinds of cases. Please do not hesitate to contact us. We will be happy
Atty. Ranny Randolf B. Libayan
  Mute  
Run time: 23:24
Has AI Subtitles



Video Transcript / Subtitles:( AI generated. About AI subtitles » )
00:00.0
Alright! Yan! Magandang araw mga kabatas natin at welcome sa isa namang live stream
00:07.0
Mga kabatas natin, alam nyo po, meron niyang threat
00:11.2
Ayon sa mga vloggers ni Rafi Tulfo, nakakasuhan ni Rafi Tulfo yung mga small vloggers
00:16.3
ng cyber libel at inuna na daw po ako
00:18.9
For the information of many, wala pa naman ako natatanggap
00:23.8
Pero I'm expecting it kasi sinasabi nila pumunta na daw si Rafi Tulfo
00:28.2
doon sa Quezon City Prosecutor's Office para mag-file ng kaso laban sa akin
00:34.3
Yan yung sabi ng kanilang mga vloggers, okay?
00:36.7
Tapos, yun nga ang sinasabi niya na yung mga small vloggers daw mag-sorry daw kayo
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
00:56.0
Sina...
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
01:04.7
Batch 1 daw
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
01:25.4
Okay?
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.
02:18.1
Lakihan natin.
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.
03:47.3
Kawawa ka naman.
03:50.6
Kawawa ka naman, Mang Renesa Kalam.
03:54.3
Kawawa.
03:56.0
Ilan na bang subscribers ni Ano?
03:58.0
Ni Mang Ren, eh.
03:59.8
Pupunta tayo sa elements, mga kabatas natin, no?
04:03.6
Dito.
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.
04:28.0
Okay.
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,
04:41.4
libel ba yun?
04:44.5
Nagsalita siya.
04:47.9
Pinagmumura niya.
04:49.0
Pinakulong niya ang isang tao nang walang due process.
04:52.9
Inuari, ginawa niya yun.
04:56.1
Nag-react ka.
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
06:07.4
tsaka ni Atty.
06:13.8
Freddy Libayan.
06:15.9
Freddy Villamor.
06:17.4
Freddy Villamor.
06:19.8
Cyber libel daw.
06:22.5
Criticism, di ba?
06:23.6
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.
06:39.1
Girl.
06:40.5
Bakla tong 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.
07:23.0
Di ba?
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
07:45.0
o mga 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,
08:41.7
libel?
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.
09:01.4
Libel?
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.
09:14.9
No!
09:17.7
No!
09:18.3
No!
09:18.4
No!
09:18.4
No!
09:18.4
No!
09:18.5
No!
09:18.6
No!
09:18.7
No!
09:18.7
No!
09:18.7
No!
09:18.8
No!
09:18.8
No!
09:18.9
No!
09:19.0
No!
09:19.0
No!
09:19.1
No!
09:19.1
No!
09:19.1
No!
09:19.2
No!
09:19.2
No!
09:19.3
No!
09:19.7
No!
09:20.2
No!
09:20.3
No!
09:20.8
No!
09:21.1
No!
09:21.2
No!
09:21.7
No!
09:23.0
No!
09:23.1
No!
09:23.7
No!
09:23.7
No!
09:23.9
No!
09:23.9
No!
09:23.9
No!
09:23.9
No!
09:24.0
No!
09:24.0
No!
09:24.0
No!
09:24.0
No!
09:24.0
No!
09:24.1
No!
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,
09:36.7
bad,
09:37.8
evil,
09:40.2
it caused dishonor,
09:41.8
discredit,
09:42.7
and contempt to you,
09:44.2
kasalanan mo yun.
09:49.5
It's your freaking fault.
09:53.7
It's your 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?
10:49.5
Tiwali ka ba?
10:50.4
O bobo?
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,
11:03.1
saksi
11:03.6
ang buong
11:05.2
kabatas natin
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
11:22.2
sa kanya,
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,
11:38.0
pinapalakpakan.
11:39.8
Pag binalik sa kanya
11:41.3
kay Rafi Tulfo yun,
11:43.1
pag ganon ang nangyari,
11:46.3
mapriso ka.
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,
12:07.9
Twisted World,
12:08.7
bad examples rewarded
12:10.0
and defended.
12:14.1
They are defended.
12:21.2
Tignan nyo.
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.
12:51.2
But any attack
12:54.4
upon the private character
12:55.5
of the public officer
12:56.6
on matters which are not related
12:58.1
to the discharge
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?
13:16.9
Paano ba?
13:17.8
Bakit ba lumabas
13:18.8
yung usapang asawa na yun?
13:21.2
Dahil may finial na kaso
13:24.3
kay Rafi Tulfo noon.
13:27.7
Kumbaga,
13:29.0
ang nangyari kasi
13:30.0
hindi niya diniclare
13:31.8
kung sino.
13:33.6
Yung unang nag-file ha,
13:34.6
yung hindi ako.
13:36.8
Kung sino
13:37.8
ang tunay
13:39.0
na asawa niya.
13:42.2
Anong sinabi nila doon?
13:46.3
Misrepresentation.
13:47.2
Fraudulent misrepresentation.
13:49.4
Doon sa Certificate of Candidacy.
13:51.2
Is it related?
13:54.3
Is it related?
13:55.2
Why?
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.
14:12.2
It's in relation
14:13.4
to his qualifications.
14:21.2
,
14:22.1
yung kanyang pagiging Amerikano
14:24.1
o kaya Filipino citizen.
14:27.7
Qualifications din yun.
14:29.2
Related ba yun
14:30.2
sa pagiging
14:30.9
public officer niya?
14:33.8
Of course.
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.
14:51.2
Pero ito kasi,
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
15:03.3
ng libel.
15:04.9
Especially,
15:06.0
doon sa
15:06.8
identification.
15:10.5
Hindi na-identify
15:11.8
ng maayos.
15:20.1
Yan.
15:21.2
Tignan nyo dito.
15:28.1
Ito.
15:29.0
A more recent application
15:30.3
of the principle.
15:31.4
Ito kasi,
15:32.0
mga kabatas natin.
15:32.9
Ito rin kasi yung
15:34.4
magandang jurisprudence,
15:38.8
mga kabatas natin,
15:39.7
in relation doon
15:40.5
sa sinasabi nilang
15:41.4
libel din sa akin,
15:43.4
doon daw sa PDF
15:44.5
file defender na yun.
15:47.4
No?
15:48.4
GR number 233577
15:50.6
December 12,
15:51.2
December 5,
15:51.9
2022.
15:54.6
Sabi niya.
15:56.3
A more recent application,
15:57.7
ito.
16:05.4
Such third person,
16:06.6
tignan nyo,
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
16:13.1
as the subject
16:14.1
of the defamatory words,
16:15.4
it is material
16:16.0
for purposes of the plaintiff's
16:17.5
recovery and or
16:18.4
author's conviction
16:19.3
to establish
16:20.1
how such third person
16:21.1
was able to make
16:22.1
the connection
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
16:29.5
na si ano yan.
16:32.3
Diba?
16:32.6
Yung inaano sa akin,
16:34.0
sinasabi nga nila daw
16:35.0
na tinawag ko daw
16:36.3
na si Fiscal EJ
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
16:47.2
ng connection
16:47.9
doon sa
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?
16:56.6
Tignan nyo dito.
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
17:02.5
and or through
17:03.2
some other
17:03.8
extrinsic evidence.
17:05.8
So, paano?
17:06.5
Paano nyo sasabihin
17:07.7
na siya yun?
17:10.0
Paano nyo i-coconnect
17:11.3
e i-relate
17:12.2
ni hindi ko nga siya kilala?
17:17.7
In this case,
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
17:23.4
first name
17:23.9
Gwendolyn.
17:28.1
Wala.
17:30.3
A more recent application
17:31.9
of the principle
17:32.7
is the case of
17:33.5
Diaz versus People.
17:36.5
Diaz.
17:37.2
In Diaz,
17:37.9
the subject article
17:38.7
which was published
17:39.4
in a tabloid
17:40.0
imputed a certain
17:40.9
mis-ess
17:41.6
the characteristics
17:42.8
of being a sexual pervert
17:44.4
and possessing
17:45.3
lascivious and immoral habits.
17:47.4
The complainant
17:48.5
in the case claimed
17:49.3
that she was the person
17:50.2
described in the article
17:51.3
as mis-ess
17:52.0
because her screen name
17:53.0
was Patricia Santillan
17:54.2
and that she had
17:56.3
sexual relations
17:57.1
with the man
17:57.9
who was explicitly
17:58.8
named
17:59.3
in the article
18:01.0
Philip Henson.
18:03.1
The complainant
18:04.3
even presented
18:05.0
a witness
18:05.5
similar to this case
18:06.6
who testified
18:07.2
that she recognized
18:08.1
mis-ess to be the complainant.
18:09.7
However,
18:10.4
since there was not
18:11.6
enough evidence
18:12.6
linking the complainant
18:13.7
to mis-ess
18:14.5
apart from the fact
18:16.4
that her screen name
18:17.6
had a last name
18:18.8
that starts with S,
18:19.9
the court acquitted
18:20.8
the accused
18:21.3
they're in for libel.
18:26.1
Ito kasi yung
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.
18:36.7
How can I malign
18:37.7
how can I malign
18:38.7
someone who I don't know?
18:43.8
Putik yan.
18:49.9
The last element of libel
18:53.1
is that the victim
18:53.9
is identified
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
19:00.1
a libel suit
19:00.8
it is essential
19:01.5
that the victim
19:02.2
be identifiable
19:03.1
although it is not necessary
19:04.6
that the person be named.
19:06.4
It is enough
19:07.1
if by intrinsic reference
19:09.0
the allusion is apparent
19:10.6
or if the publication
19:11.8
contains matters
19:12.6
of description
19:13.3
or reference
19:14.1
to facts
19:14.7
and circumstances
19:15.9
from which others
19:17.1
reading the article
19:18.1
may know the person.
19:19.2
You will know
19:23.1
the person alluded to.
19:25.1
Or if the latter
19:26.2
is pointed out
19:27.0
by extraneous circumstances
19:28.2
so that those knowing
19:29.3
such person
19:30.0
could and did understand
19:31.2
that he or she
19:32.4
was the person
19:33.0
referred to
19:33.7
Kangkol vs. Cable News
19:36.9
American and Lyons
19:38.1
laid the rule
19:38.8
that the requirement
19:39.6
is complied with
19:40.5
where a third person
19:41.6
recognized
19:42.2
or could identify
19:43.2
the party billified
19:44.4
in the article.
19:49.2
There should be
19:50.2
a connection.
19:55.1
There should be
19:55.8
an anchor.
19:57.4
There should be a basis
19:58.5
on why you are the one.
20:03.1
Hmm.
20:11.5
There.
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.
20:23.5
This harm may be
20:24.1
in the form of damage
20:25.1
of one's character,
20:25.9
good name,
20:26.5
or standing in the community.
20:40.4
Simply.
20:49.2
Isang tao lang.
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
21:37.8
na pangalan?
21:45.4
Yung fact ba na na-identify ako
21:47.5
o ay identifiable ako
21:49.0
dahil may mga
21:49.2
dahil ang daming
21:49.8
nag-comment ng gano'n.
21:54.2
Kahit walang binanggit
21:55.5
na pangalan ko
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
22:05.8
yung pangalan ko
22:06.6
ibig sabihin hindi ako yun.
22:13.3
Sabi niya
22:14.0
hindi ba pwede attorney?
22:15.6
Sabi ni Mang Rene
22:16.6
sa kalambawat
22:18.5
at recruit ko
22:19.1
dagdag sa ligtas points ko.
22:21.3
Hindi.
22:23.1
Kasi sorry
22:24.0
ang ligtas points dito.
22:26.2
So dapat mag-sorry ka
22:27.1
ng marami.
22:29.5
Diba?
22:31.9
Mag-sorry ka
22:32.9
ng marami.
22:48.0
Sabi ni teacher
22:49.0
Mark.
22:49.3
Attorney sabi po ni Jeshay TV
22:50.6
if ever kasuhan
22:51.5
at nabasura ang kaso
22:52.9
pwede mag-counter
22:53.7
so ang mga vloggers.
22:55.4
Hindi kailangan
22:56.2
ikaw naman teacher Mark
22:58.2
hindi kailangan
22:59.1
mabasura yung kaso.
23:04.2
Kasuhan na to.
23:07.8
Yan.
23:08.5
Maraming salamat
23:09.2
mga kapatid natin
23:10.0
at syempre tulad na lagi
23:10.9
yung sinasabi.
23:11.8
Matulog po tayo
23:12.5
na mahimbing
23:13.0
dahil alam natin
23:13.9
na yung natutulog na mahimbing
23:15.2
siya yung lagi yung panalo.
23:16.7
Paalam po.
23:17.4
Pansamantala.
23:19.0
Pansamantala.