00:59.8
O na libel doon sa published article.
01:11.3
Lumabas ngayon itong anti-cyber crime law.
01:14.4
Republic Act 10175, mga kabatas natin.
01:17.5
Doon sa Republic Act 10175, lumabas yung libel.
01:24.0
Nagkaroon ng cyber libel.
01:27.2
Ngayon, mga kabatas natin, doon sa Republic Act 10175, hindi nakalagay kung ano ang prescriptive period ng cyber libel.
01:40.1
Nagkaroon ng kaso. Nagkaroon ng maraming kaso.
01:43.0
Isa sa mga pinakontrobersyal na kaso dito,
01:45.8
ay yung kaso ni Maria Reza na umakyat sa Court of Appeals.
01:50.9
At nakita natin, mga kabatas natin, doon na sinabi 15 years daw.
01:56.4
Pinaliwanag din ng Supreme Court yan.
02:00.0
Siyempre, mga kabatas natin, merong mga dahilan yan.
02:04.8
Kung bakit sinabing 15 years.
02:06.8
Sinabi rin na 12 years, may dahilan din.
02:08.9
Makikita natin yan mamaya, mga kabatas natin.
02:11.1
Sinabi rin na 12 years, may dahilan din.
02:15.8
At din, dito kay Toto Causing.
02:19.2
Naka-content ko rin siya noon.
02:22.0
Nung nagkaroon siya ng konting sama ng loob.
02:28.3
Nung na-disbar siya ng Supreme Court.
02:33.1
Yung kinoll out natin yung kanyang asta.
02:37.8
Kung saan, when emotions are high, intelligence is low.
02:41.5
Well, nagpakumbaba naman siya sa Supreme Court.
02:44.7
Nagpakumbaba naman siya.
02:45.8
Nagpakumbaba naman siya sa Supreme Court.
02:47.8
Well, alam nyo, kakaiba kasi yung ginawa ni Toto Causing dito.
02:57.1
Kakaiba yung ginawa niya dito.
02:58.8
Nakasuan siya ng dalawang cyber libel cases.
03:03.2
Yung dalawang cyber libel cases na yan.
03:08.3
Criminal case number RQZN 2104099.
03:17.4
Ito kasi yung kanyang pinost.
03:20.1
Please like and share.
03:22.3
Hindi titigil ang sigaw ng Katarungan dahil sa pagnanakaw ng P266M mula sa Relief Goods para sa Marawi Evacues.
03:31.0
Dahil tinanggal ng Radio Inquirer itong video sa kanilang website,
03:35.0
ini-upload ko ito para patuloy na mapanood ng lahat ang pagsampan ng kasong plunder o higanting pagnanakaw
03:41.8
laban sa Region 12 Director Bay Zorahayda.
03:45.8
At South Cotabato Congressman, Dinan Hernandez.
03:51.1
Tapos, ito mga kabatas natin.
03:53.2
Ito yung pangalawa.
03:55.3
Kampon ng mga magnanakaw.
03:57.2
Huwag kalimutan ang nagnakaw ng pera ng Bakwit Marawi na sina Dinan Hernandez, Zorahayda Itaha, Mare Virginia Hernandez P. Royuel
04:08.4
at ang kanilang mga kasama na kampon ng Dimonyo.
04:12.5
Ninakaw nila ang P225M na pera.
04:15.8
Ang mga maranaw na biktima ng gyera sa Marawi sa pamamagitan ng overprice, pag-overprice sa pagkain.
04:23.0
Ang isang pak ng pagkain ay naiyari ng Takurong Fitmart at the SW do Region 3,
04:29.3
sorry, hindi Region 3 yan, Region 12 na emergency bidding.
04:34.9
Pinalabas nila na P515 ang halaga ng isang food pack.
04:38.9
Pero kung bibilhin mo ang mga items na sabing food pack direkta sa Takurong Fitmart,
04:44.5
nagkakahalaga lamang ng P225M.
04:47.4
Kada isang pack at idagdag na lang dito ang P48 na tuyo o bulad.
04:56.0
Ngayon, to cut the story short, mga kabatas natin,
05:00.2
itong mga posts ni Toto Causing na ito,
05:04.8
Bertini, Bertini Causing, Toto Causing na lang ang tawag natin sa kanya.
05:08.7
Kasi yun naman yung gusto niyong itawag sa kanya.
05:12.2
At saka, mahaba yung Bertini.
05:14.0
Yung Toto Causing, mga kabatas natin, nag-prescribe na daw ng one year from time of publication.
05:20.7
Ang nangyari dito, pumasok yung kaso niya sa prosecutor's level.
05:29.0
So, magkakaroon na ng kaso.
05:31.7
Magkakaroon na ng arraignment.
05:33.7
Nag-file siya ng motion to quash information.
05:37.1
Ano yung motion to quash information?
05:38.5
Yun yun, mga kabatas natin, yung finafile mo kapag ikaw,
05:43.3
yung information, it does not allege any crime, blah, blah, blah, blah.
05:49.9
Okay? O kaya, the crime has prescribed.
05:53.1
Sa kanya, mga kabatas natin, nag-file siya ng motion to quash information.
05:57.2
One of the reasons is because the crime has prescribed.
06:02.5
Anong ginawa ng Regional Trial Court, mga kabatas natin?
06:05.1
Ang ginawa ng Regional Trial Court, dininay yung motion to quash niya.
06:09.0
Pagka dinay yung motion to quash niya, mga kabatas natin,
06:15.5
imbis na, syempre, tutuloy ka.
06:17.3
Usually, ang normal route kasi dyan, mga kabatas natin,
06:20.2
meron tayong tinatawag na hierarchy of courts eh.
06:23.9
Ang pag-dinay ng isang motion to quash ay tinatawag nilang interlocutory order.
06:28.9
Ang isang interlocutory order, hindi nito tinatapos yung kaso.
06:35.5
Parang ito ay mga desisyon lang o orders na kailangan gawin ng korte
06:41.0
in between cases.
06:43.3
It does not end the case.
06:49.7
Ano ang mga nag-e-end sa kaso?
06:52.0
Itong mga desisyons.
06:53.3
Mga final desisyons.
06:55.7
Yung mga desisyon na guilty or not guilty.
06:59.2
Conviction or acquital.
07:01.6
Yun. It ends the case.
07:03.4
Ito, mga kabatas natin, this is merely an interlocutory order.
07:07.4
Pero, mga kabatas natin,
07:10.3
inakyat niyan to sa Supreme Court.
07:11.6
Ang general rule,
07:13.3
kapag ang isang bagay ay interlocutory order lamang,
07:19.3
tapos merong errors doon,
07:21.5
o may grave abuse of discretion,
07:24.1
i-raise mo yung errors na yon on appeal kapag natalo ka sa kaso.
07:29.4
Itong si Atty. Toto Causing,
07:31.0
o Toto Causing na ngayon kasi na-disbar pa siya.
07:34.4
Ang ginawa niya, inakyat niya ngayon diretsyo sa Supreme Court.
07:43.3
Ito si, ano, si Kayu.
07:47.2
O, nilayasan mo daw yung mga, ano mo, kanina.
07:51.4
Ayan daw yung dahilan niya. Gapang pa rin sa data.
07:56.0
Globe, umayos daw kayo.
07:58.8
Yeah, you can go there.
08:02.5
Good job on going to the dentist.
08:04.8
Guys, do you know why I said that?
08:07.3
I went to the dentist.
08:08.6
I wasn't allowed to eat,
08:13.3
water for four hours or six and food.
08:19.6
Okay, go na. Go eat.
08:21.7
Okay, tuloy natin. Ito mga kapatid natin.
08:24.1
Interlocutory order lang yun.
08:26.2
So dapat ang gagawin mo dyan,
08:32.5
o hindi ka magpipetition
08:34.1
kasi nga interlocutory order lang eh.
08:39.2
Interlocutory order lang eh.
08:41.6
Ngayon, ang ginawa niya, Atty.
08:44.5
umakyat siya diretsyo sa Supreme Court.
08:46.9
Binaliwala yung hierarchy of courts.
08:49.2
Kasi pag RTC ka, dapat mag-CCA ka muna.
08:51.6
Aside from the fact na mag-CCA ka muna,
08:54.0
hindi pa tapos yung kaso eh.
08:55.5
Interlocutory order lang yan eh.
08:57.3
Doon sa motion to quash mo eh.
08:58.9
Dininay lang yun eh.
09:00.1
Pero ang ginawa niya,
09:02.6
Mga kaotos natin.
09:05.3
Sa madaling salita,
09:06.8
dinismiss yung petisyon niya.
09:09.8
may magandang nangyari dito.
09:11.8
Sinabi ng Supreme Court,
09:13.0
na although may violation,
09:15.0
doon sa hierarchy of courts,
09:17.0
umakyat siya agad.
09:18.0
Dumeretsyo siya doon.
09:20.0
Mayroon siyang nirace dito na maayos na issue.
09:23.0
Yung issue tungkol sa
09:33.0
Kasi nga, mga kabatas natin,
09:40.0
kapag walang ano,
09:42.0
mga kabatas natin,
09:43.0
kapag walang nakalagay na prescriptive period,
09:49.0
Kapag walang nakalagay...
09:54.0
Hanapin ko lang sa inyo.
09:56.0
Pakita ko sa inyo para...
10:01.0
Exceptional circumstances warrant the filing of the present petition directly with the court against the RTC's denial
10:08.0
of the motion to quash.
10:10.0
Kasi sinabi ng Supreme Court,
10:16.0
na nirace itong si Atty. Cousy.
10:24.0
puntahan natin yung ano.
10:28.0
Ito, mga kabatas natin.
10:29.0
Republic Act 101-75 did not create a new crime,
10:33.0
but merely implements the RPC's provisions on libel
10:36.0
when written defamatory remarks are published through a computer system.
10:40.0
Isa yan sa mga dahilan kung bakit sinabi ng Supreme Court na dapat one year din.
10:45.0
Dapat huwag tayong mag-deviate doon sa libel in relation to the revised penal code
10:52.0
and how it is defined and treated in the revised penal code.
10:56.0
Kasi nga, directly, expressly, kinote sa Republic Act 101-75 yung RPC rule on libel.
11:13.0
Ito kasi yung mga kabatas natin.
11:16.0
the applicable laws in prescription of criminal offenses defined and penalized under RPC
11:20.0
are found in Article 90 and 91 of the same code.
11:23.0
For those penalized by special laws which do not provide their own prescriptive period,
11:28.0
ito yung sinasabi ko sa inyo.
11:30.0
Kasi, hindi nag-pro-provide ng own prescriptive period 101-75.
11:35.0
So, ang sinunod nila ay yung Act No. 1,
11:36.0
ang sinunod nila ay yung Act No. 3321.
11:39.0
Yun yung ginawa nung iba.
11:41.0
Ngayon, that's for the court to resolve the issue of whether Act No. 3326 of the RPC applies to cyber libel.
11:49.0
It must first determine whether cyber libel is a crime defined and penalized by the RPC or by Republic Act 101-75
11:56.0
which is a special law.
11:59.0
Wala naman kasing nakalagay doon kung ilan ng prescriptive,
12:02.0
o hanggang kailan ang prescriptive period.
12:05.0
sinabi nila ang mag-a-apply,
12:08.0
Pero mga kabatas natin,
12:12.0
sinabi dito, it is not a new crime.
12:15.0
So, if it is not a new crime,
12:17.0
how you define libel in the revised penal code?
12:24.0
Also, including the pronouncement of the Supreme Court which form part of the law of the land in relation to libel,
12:35.0
Meron kasi dito mga kabatas natin yung kaso ng Tolentino.
12:38.0
Yung kaso ng Tolentino dito mga kabatas natin,
12:41.0
inabandon ng korte yun,
12:43.0
ng Supreme Court.
12:44.0
Bakit doon sa kaso ng Tolentino mga kabatas natin,
12:47.0
iba rin yung prescription ng libel dito?
12:49.0
Kasi nga, meron dito yung Act No. 3326.
12:55.0
Meron yung Act No. 3326.
12:57.0
Ngayon mga kabatas natin, sabi niya,
12:59.0
the court rules in favor of causing Section 4C4 of RPC 101-75,
13:03.0
merely implements the RPC's provision on libel under Article 353 and 355.
13:08.0
Therefore, when it is committed through a computer system,
13:12.0
thus, in determining the prescriptive period of cyber libel,
13:16.0
the RPC, not Act No. 3326, should be applied.
13:21.0
Itong mga kabatas natin,
13:23.0
itong desisyon na ito,
13:25.0
napromulgate lang late last year.
13:28.0
October last year.
13:31.0
Siyempre, kung kailan pinublish ito,
13:33.0
hindi ko alam kung kailan pinublish.
13:35.0
Pero it's, siyempre, kailangan ipaalam sa lahat ito.
13:41.0
Sabi niyang ganyan,
13:43.0
did not create any new crime,
13:46.0
yung Republic Act 101-75.
13:54.0
dun sa decine-decision mga kabatas natin,
13:57.0
cyber libel is not a new crime because Article 353 in relation to Article 355 of the RPC,
14:02.0
the RPC already punishes it.
14:05.0
The offense under Section 4 of Republic Act 101-75
14:09.0
and felony under Article 355 of the RPC are one and the same crime.
14:13.0
Ngayon, ang tanong kasi ng marami,
14:15.0
eh bakit mas mataas yung penalty?
14:16.0
Kasi nga, gumamit ng computer systems.
14:19.0
Tapos, siyempre, pag gumamit ka ng computer systems,
14:22.0
at saka, pinublish mo yan,
14:24.0
especially sa social media,
14:25.0
mas marami o mas malaki yung damage,
14:27.0
yung sakop ng damage na makukuha niya.
14:31.0
Siyempre, ito na naman,
14:32.0
libel is not a constitutionally protected speech.
14:36.0
Protected speech.
14:37.0
Alam na natin yan.
14:43.0
inulit-ulit lang naman nila eh.
14:44.0
Nag-emphasize lang sila dyan na it did not create a new crime.
14:47.0
Kaya ang susundin pa rin natin ay yung rule on cyber libel.
14:53.0
Rules on cyber libel.
14:55.0
Oh, sorry, on libel.
14:56.0
On ordinary libel.
14:59.0
Sabi niyang ganyan,
15:00.0
Article 90 and 91 of the RPC,
15:02.0
not Section 1 of Act 3326,
15:05.0
define the prescriptive period of cyber libel.
15:11.0
So, yung sinasabi ng 12 years, 15 years,
15:23.0
Dito kasi meron din yung,
15:27.0
may inabandon sila.
15:35.0
Article 90 of the RPC is controlling making the crime of cyber libel prescribed in one year.
15:41.0
Thus, the ruling in Tolentino must be abandoned.
15:49.0
Doon sa Tolentino, kasi mga kabatas natin, doon nga linabas.
15:52.0
At doon din yung naging basihan ng Court of Appeals noon, mga kabatas natin, na,
15:58.0
nagkakagulo yung prescription ng cyber libel.
16:04.0
Considering that Article 90 of the RPC provides the shorter prescriptive period at only one year,
16:08.0
and is therefore more favorable to the accused,
16:10.0
it should prevail over the application of Act No. 3326,
16:14.0
which would make cyber libel prescribed in 12 years.
16:19.0
12 years, 15 years, wala na yun.
16:27.0
Nakalagay dito kasi.
16:38.0
Ano pa ba yung maganda dito?
16:41.0
The Court agrees with Causing and abandons the Tolentino Doctrine on the Prescriptive Period of Cyber Libel to emphasize what governs.
16:51.0
The prescription of cyber libel is Paragraph 4, not Paragraph 2 of Article 90 of the RPC.
16:56.0
Hence, the crime of cyber libel prescribes in one year.
17:03.0
Significantly, the Court reached the same conclusion in Tolentino when it declared that cyber libel prescribes in 15 years.
17:11.0
O yan yung sinasabi ko sa inyo na inapply ng Court of Appeals noon doon sa kaso ni Maria Reza.
17:18.0
Sinabi nila it prescribes in 15 years because of the ruling in Tolentino.
17:24.0
Ngayon, wala na lahat yun.
17:27.0
Yung 12 years, wala na rin yun.
17:30.0
Yung 15 years which became controlling because of the Tolentino case or the Tolentino Doctrine, abandoned na yun.
17:42.0
Si Ricol may ina-advertise.
17:49.0
Magiging contribution yan ng mga gumagawa ng mga parodies.
17:55.0
Ma-ignite yung creativity sa ating mga puso at isipan.
18:01.0
Meron na mga maglalabas dyan and I'll try my best to make one.
18:11.0
Tama yung argument niya.
18:13.0
Tandaan nyo mga kabatas natin ha.
18:17.0
Kaya nga, alam nyo kudos kay Toto Causing dito.
18:22.0
Because he fought for this.
18:25.0
Even, even he knows the existence of the Tolentino case.
18:33.0
Na sinabing 15 years doon.
18:36.0
Because he fought for this.
18:39.0
It was abandoned.
18:46.0
May lyrics na nga ako eh.
18:49.0
Doon sumali kahit sino.
18:53.0
Doon sa mga gagawin yung ano...
18:59.0
Doon sa mga gagawin yung...
19:02.0
Doon sa mga gagawin yung...
19:07.0
I-submit nyo lang.
19:09.0
You can advertise your channels there.
19:10.0
Wala namang problema.
19:11.0
Wala ng prohibition for advertising.
19:13.0
It's for everyone.
19:14.0
Kaya nga, parody natin yun.
19:15.0
Kasi sa atin lahat yun.
19:16.0
Ito sabi ni Kayu.
19:18.0
Bakit dyan may nakalagay na must be abandoned sa udang wala?
19:24.0
Because I don't...
19:26.0
In the Tulagan case, mga kapatid natin.
19:29.0
Tapos yung sa Bangayan case na sinasabi ni Fabri.
19:36.0
Very specific kasi.
19:38.0
Yung mga provisions o mga declarations ng Supreme Court that they took exception.
19:46.0
O inabandon nila.
19:47.0
They did not abandon or did not overturn the case.
19:53.0
They did not overturn the case.
19:54.0
Kasi doon sa kaso na yun, marami pa rin ang magagandang pronouncement ng Supreme Court doon.
19:59.0
Pero may dalawang particular na sweeping statements na ginawa nila doon na inabandon nila.
20:08.0
If they were talking about something that is specific, then you should refer to those specific provisions and not the whole case.
20:15.0
Ito kasi mga kabatas natin.
20:16.0
Yung Tulintino na kaso, sinabi niya na magpe-prescribe ang cyber libel in 15 years.
20:28.0
Tapos isipin niyo ito.
20:29.0
The courage to do it.
20:31.0
Kaya nga sabi ko kudos din kay Toto Causing.
20:36.0
Pinaglaban mo talaga yung sa tingin mo tama.
20:44.0
The Tulintino case was controlling.
20:48.0
The Tulintino case was controlling.
20:51.0
The conclusion ng Tulintino when he declared that cyber libel prescribes in 15 years.
20:57.0
Yan yung controlling nung challenge niya yan.
21:05.0
It did not create a new crime.
21:09.0
Ano sabi ng Supreme Court?
21:12.0
Kailangan naming i-abandon yung Tulintino.
21:30.0
The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall be prescribed in one year.
21:37.0
He insists that cyber libel.
21:39.0
Well, it's just a matter of insisting.
21:44.0
He fought for something he thinks is nice.
21:49.0
The court agrees with Causing and abandons Tulintino doctrine on the prescriptive period of cyber libel.
21:55.0
To emphasize, what governs the prescription of cyber libel is paragraph 4, not paragraph 2 of Article 90 of the RPC.
22:01.0
Hence, the crime of cyber libel prescribes in one year.
22:05.0
Hindi 12, hindi 15.
22:08.0
The court agrees with Causing and abandons the Tulintino doctrine.
22:16.0
This is a huge win for Toto Causing.
22:28.0
Anyway, basahin nyo na lang yan.
22:33.0
Second, it is elementary rule.
22:36.0
Second, it is elementary rule in statutory construction that special and specific provisions of law prevails over general provisions of the same law,
22:44.0
irrespective of their relative position in the statute.
22:47.0
So, dito kasi mga kabatas natin, yung issue yan na naman ng 12 years.
22:51.0
Anong paragraph ba ang mag-a-apply?
22:55.0
Ang mag-a-apply, yung specific provision na sinabi, one year.
23:03.0
Yung Article 90 kasi mga kabatas natin is a general provision.
23:09.0
Paragraph 4 is a specific provision which applies to libel and other similar crimes.
23:26.0
Ito mga nagsite lang naman sila dito.
23:29.0
Ito yung Paragraph 2, Article 90 of the RPC.
23:36.0
That would increase its prescriptive period to 15 years.
23:43.0
Persuad to Article 91 of the RPC, the crime of cyber libel prescribes in one year from its discovery by the offended party, the authorities or their agents.
23:54.0
So, titignan nyo mga kabatas natin, no?
23:57.0
Prescribes in one year.
23:58.0
Prescribes in one year from its discovery.
24:00.0
So, from the time na nag-discover mo yung ginawa niya.
24:05.0
The authorities or their agents.
24:09.0
Siyempre, alam natin kung sino yung mga authorities.
24:13.0
O kayo yung mga agents nila.
24:15.0
So, pag titignan nyo, discovery ha.
24:17.0
Pero ito kasi mga kabatas natin, sinabi rin dito sa batas na ito, indetermined when one year prescriptive of cyber libel should be record.
24:27.0
Reference must be made to Article 91 of the RPC.
24:31.0
So, sinabi dito kasi mga kabatas natin, from the discovery.
24:34.0
Kaya lang nag-cite din yung Supreme Court dito nung mga cases kung saan it was record from discovery.
24:46.0
So, dalawa ang pwedeng reckoning period ng cyber libel.
24:55.0
Unang-una, from the discovery.
24:58.0
Ito naman mga kabatas natin, date of publication.
25:01.0
So, it is case-to-case basis.
25:05.0
So, nag-cite siya ng Supreme Court.
25:07.0
Nag-cite siya, record from discovery.
25:09.0
Ito naman, several cases were decided by the court where the prescriptive period of libel commenced on the date of publication of the libelous remarks.
25:17.0
In people versus hines.
25:21.0
The period was counted from the date of the publication of the allegedly libelous remarks.
25:28.0
Ito, in Sihun Leong versus Rivera, prescription was counted on the date when the allegedly libelous text message was sent to the third party.
25:38.0
Other cases decided by the Supreme Court counted the one-year prescriptive period of libel from the date of publication in holding that the criminal proceedings therein were not time-barred.
25:51.0
In Honorable Carderon Vargas versus RTC of Pasig.
25:54.0
Prescription was deemed to commence from the date of the publication of the allegedly libelous newspaper.
26:03.0
Dalawa ang pwedeng basihan.
26:06.0
From discovery or from date of publication.
26:11.0
I will not dwell on the specifics na dito.
26:14.0
Pero maybe I'll make another video out of that.
26:17.0
Kailan ba magiging from discovery?
26:19.0
Kailan ba magiging from publication of the libelous?
26:23.0
Or alleged libelous material?
26:27.0
Kasi, yan. Matagal-tagal na rin ito.
26:35.0
Sabi niya, upon a careful evaluation of the foregoing crisis, the court holds that the prescriptive period of libel under 355 of the RPC and cyber libel under section 4 of RA in relation to Article 355 must be counted from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offender.
26:52.0
It must be counted from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents.
26:57.0
Parang kanina yata, mga kabatas natin, sinabi ko na dalawa.
27:02.0
Dito, mga kabatas natin, I think I missed this one.
27:07.0
It must be counted.
27:10.0
Mga kabatas natin.
27:12.0
It must be counted from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents.
27:23.0
Sinabi rin dito, mga kabatas natin, na prescription is a matter of defense.
27:28.0
So, ang problema dito, syempre, you have to show evidence kung kailan na-discover nung offended party, nung authorities or yung agents, yung crime.
27:46.0
The court affirms its ruling in Alcantara that prescription is a matter of defense.
27:49.0
It is also counted from discovery of the published libelous matter by the offended party, the authorities or their agents because they could hardly be expected to institute criminal proceeding for libel without prior knowledge of the same.
28:01.0
This is more in keeping with Article 91 of the RPC.
28:04.0
Ang problema ko dito, mga kabatas natin, paano pag Highness, tiwala ito, di ba?
28:09.0
Kung kailan nila nakita ito?
28:11.0
Saan ang basihan?
28:15.0
Must sabič° dyan.
28:18.0
Pero, ito, the prescriptive period may be reckoned from the publication of the libelous matter only when it coincides with the date of discovery by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents.
28:33.5
So, mga kabatas natin, yung must pa rin ang controlling.
28:40.3
Yung must pa rin ang controlling, pero pwede if it coincides with the date of discovery by the offended party, the authorities, and their agents.
28:50.1
So, pwede pa rin pareho, pero mga kabatas natin, must eh.
29:00.2
So, dun tayo sa must.
29:10.3
Okay, although Hines and Siyon Long reckoned prescriptions from the date of publication, the offended parties in the said cases did not allege a lot later date of discovery, different from the publication date.
29:21.2
Ayun. Nasagot yung tanong.
29:23.1
Paano pag walang inallege?
29:24.5
Pag walang inallege, publication.
29:29.6
It thus appears that in these two cases, the publication and discovery dates are one in the same, or at the very least, have been impliedly admitted to be the same by the offended parties.
29:41.2
So, either may implied.
29:42.6
Okay, ito, ito. Let's resolve this.
29:45.2
Siyempre, ang general rule, it must be from the time of discovery.
29:51.6
Yung aircon ko, bakit mahina? Pinagpapawisan ako.
29:54.2
It must be from the time of discovery.
29:56.4
Ngayon, kapag walang nakalagay, ipagpapalagay nung batas natin na yung date of publication.
30:10.3
It can't be prescription from the date of publication.
30:13.5
Kung walang later date of discovery, different from the publication date.
30:21.6
Yun ang mangyayari.
30:22.9
So, dalawa pa rin.
30:23.9
Kaya lang, mga kabatas natin, must.
30:32.4
Siyempre, that's the general rule.
30:34.2
Kaya sa tingin ko, in-specify niya.
30:39.0
Kasi nung unang binasa ko ito, mga.
30:40.3
Mga kabatas natin.
30:43.3
Pero, ngayon, na-ine-explain ko sa inyo, we should emphasize the must.
30:49.2
So, basically, parang isa lang may exception.
30:59.1
The prescription of cyber libel charges against Kausing is a question of fact to be determined by the RTC after hearing the parties.
31:06.7
I think we discussed this case.
31:10.3
Extensively, in relation to the prescription of crimes of cyber libel at saka when it is reckoned to run the prescriptive period.
31:26.3
So, ano yung natutunan natin dito?
31:30.8
One year ang prescription ng cyber libel cases.
31:34.1
Ibig sabihin, after one year, hindi ka na pwedeng mag-file.
31:38.3
Kailan bibilangin?
31:39.2
From the time of destruction.
31:42.2
Kapag hindi time of discovery, anong exception?
31:46.9
Kung walang later date, from the time of publication.
31:50.3
Or, if they are both, pwedeng from the time of publication.
31:55.0
Maraming salamat, mga kabatas natin.
31:56.6
At, syempre, tulad ng lagi kong sinasabi, matulog po tayo ng mahimbing dahil alam natin na yung natutulog ng mahimbing, siya yung lagi yung panalo.
32:05.9
Thank you for watching.
