00:59.0
Meron kasing mga nagsasabi at mga naniniwala na ang truth daw is an absolute defense in cyber libel.
01:06.7
Mali po ang paniniwalang yan.
01:09.4
Bakit ko nasabing mali?
01:11.4
Tingnan po natin kung ano ang nakasaad sa ating batas.
01:16.0
I'm talking about Article 361 of the Regulation.
01:19.7
Revised Penal Code.
01:21.6
Ito po ang nakalagay sa Article 361.
01:27.3
Proof of the Truth.
01:28.8
In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court,
01:35.4
and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true,
01:40.0
and moreover that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends,
01:45.8
the defendants shall be acquitted.
01:48.7
Proof of the Truth.
01:49.7
The truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be admitted
01:55.8
unless the imputation shall have been made against government employees
02:00.2
with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties.
02:07.2
In such cases, if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him,
02:13.1
he shall be acquitted.
02:15.0
At first glance, especially kung babasahin mo lang ang first paragraph,
02:19.7
it would seem that truth may well indeed be an absolute defense.
02:25.7
But look closely at the second paragraph of Article 361.
02:30.2
Ano ba ang nakalagay sa second paragraph?
02:32.8
Ang second paragraph po ay ang paragraph na nagbibigay ng qualification or limitation sa scope ng first paragraph.
02:42.2
Ibig sabihin, hindi pala absolute defense ang truth.
02:46.4
Magiging defense lang ang truth sa cyber libel,
02:49.7
under any of two instances.
02:53.9
Under the first instance,
02:56.5
proof of the truth can be used as a defense
02:59.2
when the defamatory statement is an imputation of a crime,
03:04.6
regardless of whether the person libeled is a private individual,
03:10.3
public officer, or a public figure.
03:15.8
si Pedro, isang sikat na vlogger,
03:19.7
Sa kanyang YouTube channel, dahil gusto daw siyang ipapatay ni Juan, na isang congressman.
03:25.1
Nag-file ngayon ng kasong cyber libel si congressman Juan,
03:29.2
dahil ang paratang ni Pedro na gusto siyang ipapatay ni congressman Juan,
03:33.5
ay isang imputation of a crime.
03:36.7
The crime of grave threats under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code.
03:42.4
And you already know, na pag imputation of a crime, it is per se defamatory.
03:49.7
Pwede bang magbigay ng proof si Pedro na talagang gusto siyang ipapatay ni congressman Juan?
03:57.9
But it's not enough na basta na lang sasabihin ni Pedro sa fiskal o sa judge
04:02.6
na he is telling the truth.
04:05.2
Merely having good intentions is not proof.
04:09.8
Kaya nga, proof of the truth ang tawag.
04:13.1
Pedro, therefore, must present evidence that Juan really uttered words to the effect that,
04:19.7
that he threatened to kill Pedro.
04:23.0
Kung nag-bad joke o nag-death wish lang pala si congressman Juan,
04:28.1
magiging liable for cyber libel si Pedro dahil wala naman talagang sinabi si congressman Juan na ipapapatay siya.
04:39.2
Nakapagbigay ng proof si Pedro na gusto siyang ipapatay ni Juan?
04:43.8
Maa-absuelto ba si Pedro?
04:46.9
Proof of the truth alone is not proof.
04:51.1
Hindi po enough ang proof of the truth.
04:54.3
Aside from proof of the truth,
04:56.5
kailangan pa pong i-prove ni Pedro na he published the defamatory imputation
05:01.9
with good motives and for justifiable ends.
05:08.8
ipagpalagay na natin na talagang nag-death threat si congressman Juan.
05:13.6
Nagpadala ng text message si Juan kay Pedro kung saan sinabi niya sa text,
05:18.6
pag hindi ka tumigil,
05:19.7
sa pag-atake sa akin sa channel mo,
05:22.5
ipapatumba kita para tumahimik ka na.
05:26.8
Pwede bang ipagbigay alam ni Pedro sa publiko ang banta sa buhay niya?
05:31.6
Like for example, ipakita niya sa kanyang mga tagapakinig
05:34.6
ang text message na natanggap niya mula kay Juan?
05:42.1
In such case, merong good motive and justifiable end
05:45.8
na ibalita ni Pedro sa publiko ang death threat.
05:49.7
na natanggap niya mula kay Juan para maprotektahan niya ang kanyang sarili.
05:56.5
But aside from merely publishing it in social media,
06:00.4
Pedro must also have the threat incident bluttered in the police station
06:04.8
and if warranted, a criminal complaint for grave threat should be filed against
06:09.4
congressman Juan in the proper forum.
06:14.3
Ano naman ang mangyayari pag hindi nakapagbigay ng proof si Pedro
06:19.0
dahil guni-guni lang pala niya ang lahat?
06:23.4
Makokonvict po si Pedro dahil gaya ng sabi ko,
06:26.7
an imputation of a crime is libelous or defamatory per se.
06:33.7
Let us now go through the second instance where truth can be a defense.
06:39.7
Under this second instance po,
06:42.7
truth can be a defense when the defamatory imputation
06:46.1
is against a public official.
06:49.0
Provided such imputation is with respect to facts
06:53.1
related to the discharge of his official duties.
06:57.9
Now, under this second instance,
07:00.5
ito po ang mga requisites para pwedeng gawing depensa ang truth.
07:05.8
First requisite, the person libeled is a public officer.
07:10.2
And second requisite, the defamatory imputation
07:13.5
is with respect to facts related to the discharge of the
07:19.0
public officer's duties.
07:23.3
even if the defamatory imputation is not an imputation of a crime,
07:28.3
for as long as such imputation is with respect to facts related
07:34.0
to the discharge of a public officer's official duties,
07:38.7
the accused may prove the truth thereof.
07:43.7
pag hindi konektado sa trabaho ng isang public official ang nasabing
07:48.3
defamatory imputation, kahit na totoo pa ang paratang,
07:53.7
hindi po pwedeng maging defense ang truth.
07:57.2
For example, pinaparatangan ni Pedro sa social media
08:01.6
na si Congressman Juan ay babaero at pabayang ama.
08:06.4
Ito po ay isang paratang na walang kinalaman sa trabaho niya
08:10.3
bilang congressman. Kahit na may katotohanan pa ang paratang ni Pedro,
08:15.8
hindi niya po ito pwedeng gawin.
08:18.3
Kung saka-sakaling sampahan siya ng kasong cyber libel ni Congressman Juan.
08:27.4
Take note po that in both instances that I have mentioned,
08:32.1
proof of the truth is not enough.
08:35.2
Kaya nga ang sabi ko sa simula pa lang,
08:38.1
truth is not an absolute defense.
08:41.1
Why? Because the accused must also prove that the matter charged as libelous
08:46.5
was published with good reason.
08:47.8
It was published with good motives and for justifiable ends.
08:53.3
So ano ba ang mga instances where proof of the truth is not a defense?
09:00.2
Proof of the truth is not a defense whenever the imputation is
09:05.3
an imputation of a vice, an imputation of a defect,
09:10.4
or an imputation of an act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance
09:17.8
that will tend to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person,
09:24.9
or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
09:29.3
So for example, pinaparatangan ni Pedro si Juan sa social media na isa siyang drug addict.
09:36.1
Now, kahit na nag-positive pa sa drug test si Juan, hindi po ito pwedeng gawing depensa ni Pedro
09:43.9
kung saka-sakaling sasampahan siya ng cyber libel ni Juan.
09:47.4
Truth is not a defense when the defamatory imputation is an imputation of a vice.
09:57.6
Why? Because imputation of a vice, a defect, etc. is not among the instances
10:04.1
where proof of the truth can be used as a defense.
10:09.6
So, huwag po tayong maniniwala sa pinagsasabi ng iba na truth is an absolute defense.
10:17.4
Ipagbase po natin ang ating kaalaman sa batas because such a claim is utterly wrong and devoid of legal basis.
10:28.6
Maraming salamat po.