Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
The case G.R. No.
203335 pertains to the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 in the Philippines, which was challenged in the Supreme Court. The court found certain provisions of the act unconstitutional for various reasons. Here are three aspects that were deemed unconstitutional:
Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data: The Supreme Court held that the provisions allowing the collection of traffic data in real-time without a court order were unconstitutional. This was because they violated the rights to privacy and due process1.
Overbroad and Vague Provisions: Some provisions were struck down for being overbroad and vague, which could lead to arbitrary enforcement and infringe on freedom of expression2.
Double Jeopardy in Libel: The law was also challenged for potentially subjecting individuals to double jeopardy in cases of libel. This is because it allowed for the prosecution of online libel both under the Cybercrime Prevention Act and the Revised Penal Code, which could result in being punished twice for the same offense2.
A prison sentence of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods1.
A fine ranging from PHP 40,000 to PHP 1,200,0001.
In addition to the criminal penalties, there may also be a civil complaint for damages2.
A libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party.” It’s important to note that these penalties can be imposed for libelous acts committed through a computer system or any similar means that may be devised in the future. The law aims to address the harm caused by the public and malicious imputation of a crime or defect against an individual or entity, which can lead to dishonor, discredit, or contempt.
Section 5 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 in the Philippines deals with the offense of aiding or abetting, and attempt in the commission of cybercrimes. Here’s a summary of its contents:
Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime1: Any person who willfully aids or abets in the commission of any of the offenses enumerated in the Act shall be held liable.
Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime2: Any person who willfully attempts to commit any of the offenses enumerated in the Act shall also be held liable.
As for the penalty, failure to comply with the provisions, specifically the orders from law enforcement authorities, is punished as a violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829. The penalty for noncompliance can include imprisonment of prision correctional in its maximum period or a fine of up to One hundred thousand pesos (Php100,000.00) or both, for each and every noncompliance with an order issued by law enforcement authorities3.
