December 6, 2024 | 12:00am
MANILA, Philippines — Vloggers may face legal consequences if they issue statements that incite to sedition or “excessively” defame people without basis, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Jaime Santiago said yesterday.
“I want to remind the public, especially vloggers, that our right to freedom of expression is not absolute. It has limitations,” Santiago said in Filipino. “If you are inciting to sedition or engaging in excessive defamation without any basis, we can investigate and file charges.”
He also said people whose private online conversations are leaked to the public may file cybercrime complaints.
Posting screenshots of private messages on social media to defame someone can be a ground for a cybercrime complaint, falling under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which can be filed with the NBI Cybercrime Division or the Philippine National Police Anti-Cybercrime Group, he said.
“It depends on the affected individual whose private conversations were made public if they want to hold accountable those who posted their private messages. It’s up to them, and they can file complaints,” Santiago said in an interview over dzBB.
Santiago said the NBI conducted multiple operations related to unauthorized posting of private messages, including those involving disputes over debts.
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 penalizes offenses such as illegal access, data interference and online libel, among others.
Santiago’s comments came after the NBI received a letter on Wednesday from Surigao del Norte Rep. Robert Ace Barbers, who urged investigative agencies to take a proactive stance against cybercrimes.
Online chats, video OK as evidence
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that online chat logs and videos can be admitted as evidence in court without violating the right to privacy, if used to determine whether a crime has been committed.
In an 18-page decision penned by Associate Justice Mario Lopez, the SC Second Division dismissed the appeal filed by Eul Vincent Rodriguez who was convicted of qualified trafficking in persons under Republic Act 9208 or the Anti-Trafficking of Persons Act of 2003.
Based on court records, the Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force of Region 7 began investigating Rodriguez in 2013 after receiving a tip from the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement of his activities related to offering nude shows, some involving minors, in exchange for money.
PO3 Jerry Gambi said he used a decoy account to communicate with Rodriguez across various online platforms. He also recorded their correspondence.
His initial investigation showed that Rodriguez offered nude shows in exchange for money. One of the nude shows involved Rodriguez’s minor cousins, an activity that Gambi ordered stopped after having a portion recorded.
Following this, an entrapment operation was set wherein Gambi told Rodriguez that a foreigner friend was staying at a certain hotel. Rodriguez offered to have a 14-year-old meet them at the hotel to do a live nude show.
Rodriguez was arrested and charged after accepting marked money from the foreigner who was also a police confidential informant.
The regional trial court convicted Rodriguez and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Rodriguez went to the SC, saying the pieces of evidence were inadmissible as these violated his data privacy.
But the SC also upheld the decision, saying the videos and recordings of the chat logs of Rodriguez’s conversations with Gambi can be admitted as evidence.
“As the chat logs and videos presented by Rodriguez were submitted as evidence to assess his criminal liability for qualified trafficking, his right to privacy was not violated,” the high court ruled.
It said the videos and chat logs were presented as evidence to show Rodriguez’s method of reaching out to foreigners through Skype or Facebook and offering minors for sexual exploitation.
Rodriguez was sentenced to life imprisonment and fined P2 million. He was also ordered to pay P600,000 in damages, with legal interest of six percent per annum from the finality of judgment, until full payment.
Be the first to comment