PART 1: PRELIMINARIES 9.

Repeal on existing laws

Art. 7, New Civil Code.
Basic Legal Principles Applied in Forensics Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their
1. PRINCIPLE OF STARE DECISES violation or non observance shall not be excused by disuse,or
 A principle that, when the court has once laid down a custom or practice to the contrary.
principle of law or interpretation as applied to a certain
state of facts, it will adhere to and apply to all future cases When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the
where the facts are substantially the same. constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern.
Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be
2. Res Judicata valid ony when they are not contrary to laws or the constitution.
 The rule that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a
court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights REPEAL OF LAW – is the legislative act of abrogating through a
of the parties or their privies in all later suits on all points subsequent law the effects of a previous statute or portion thereof.
and matters determined in the former suit.
How laws are repealed:
The elements of res judicata are: 1) EXPRESS REPEAL – one which is literally declared by a new law
a. the former judgment or order must be final;  either in:
b. the judgment or order must be on the merits; a) SPECIFIC TERMS – as where particular laws and provisions
c. it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over are named and identified and declared to be repealed, or
the subject matter and the parties; b) GENERAL TERMS – as where a provision in a new law
d. there must be, between the first and the second action, identity declares all laws and parts of laws inconsistent therewith
of parties, of subject matter and cause of action to be repealed.
2) IMPLIED REPEAL – takes place when a new law contains
3. Forum Shopping provisions contrary to or inconsistent with the former law
 when a party repetitively avails of several judicial remedies without expressly repealing them.
in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all
substantially founded on the same transactions and the Definition of Terms:
same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising
substantially the same issues either pending in or already 1. LAW
resolved adversely by some other court."  Rule of conduct, just, obligatory, laid by legitimate power
 an act of malpractice that is prohibited and condemned for common observance and benefit
because it trifles with the courts and abuses their  Forms of Law:
processes. It degrades the administration of justice and a) Written or Statutory Law (Lex Scripta) – composed of
adds to the already congested court dockets. laws which are produced by the country’s legislations
and which are defined, codified and incorporated by the
The elements of forum shopping are: law-making body. Ex. Philippine Laws.
(a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the b) Unwritten or Common Law (Lex non Scripta) –
same interests in both actions; composed of unwritten laws based on immemorial
(b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being customs and usages. Sometimes referred to as case law,
founded on the same facts; and common law, jurisprudence or customary law. Ex. Laws
(c) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any of England
judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which
party is successful, amounts to res judicata in the action under 2. MEDICINE
consideration.  a science and art dealing with preventation, cure and
alleviation of disease. It is that part of science and art of
4. Hierarchy of courts and laws restoring and preserving health. It is the science and art of
5. Ignorance of the law vs. Ignorance of facts diagnosing, treating, curing and preventing disease,
6. No retroactive effects of laws relieving pain, and improving the health of a person.
7. Waiver of rights
8. Customs, traditions and practices 3. LEGAL MEDICINE
 Branch of medicine which deals with the application of
CUSTOM (PIL, Bernas) medical knowledge to the purpose of law and in the
 Practice that has grown up between States and has come to be administration of justice
accepted as binding by the mere fact of persistent usage over a  Application of Law to Medicine
long period of time.
 It exists when a clear and continuous habit of doing certain 4. MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE
thing develops under the CONVICTION that it is obligatory and  Legal aspect of medical practice
right,  Application of law to medicine

5. FORENSIC MEDICINE
 Branch of medicine that deals with use of medical
knowledge to elucidate legal problems; sometimes it is
used synonymously with Legal Medicine
 Clinical Forensic Medicine
- Branch of Medicine that deals specifically with cases
involving both legal and medical aspects of patient
care.
- i.e. Request for Physical Examination of person in
custody; Aging of wounds to determine if consistent
with alleged date of infliction.
 Forensic Pathology
- Subspecialty of pathology that focuses on medico-
legal death investigation; for death under suspicious
circumstance, medico-legal officer can conduct an
autopsy
 Forensic Psychiatry
6. EVIDENCE the veracity or falsity of his
 the means, sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of testimony.
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a
matter of fact. d) EXPERIMENTAL
 MEDICAL EVIDENCE – If the means employed to prove a  A medical witness may be allowed in court to confirm
fact is medical in nature his allegation as a corroborative proof to an opinion he
previously stated.
7. TYPES OF MEDICAL/FORENSIC EVIDENCE  i.e. Lethality of poisons, drowning, etc
a) AUTOPTIC/REAL
 evidence made known or addressed to the senses of the e) PHYSICAL
court. It is not limited to that which is known through  these are articles and materials which are found in
the sense of vision but is extended to what the sense of connection with the investigation and which aid in
hearing, taste, smell and touch is perceived. (Sec.1, Rule establishing the identity of the perpetrator or the
130) circumstances under which the crime was committed, or in
 Limitations: general assist in the prosecution of a criminal.
i. Indecency or impropriety  CRIMINALISTICS – Is the identification, collection,
- presentation of evidence may be necessary to serve preservation and mode of presentation of physical
the best interest of justice but the notion of decency evidence. It is the application of sciences such as physics,
and delicacy may cause inhibition of its presentation. chemistry, medicine and other biological sciences in crime
- i.e. Court may not allow exposure of the genitalia of detection and investigation.
an alleged victim of sexual offense to show the
presence and degree of the genitalia and extra-  TYPES OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCES:
genitalia injuries suffered. a. CORPUS DELICTI
- objects or substances which may be a part of the
ii. Repulsive objects and those Offensive to body of the crime.
Sensibilities
- foul smelling objects, persons suffering from highly b. ASSOCIATIVE
infectious and communicable disease, or objects - these are physical evidence which link a suspect to
which when touch may mean potential danger to the the crime.
life and health of the judge may not be presented.
- However, if such evidence is necessary in the c. TRACING
adjudication of the case, the question of indecency - these are physical evidence which may assist the
and impropriety or the fact that such evidence is investigator in locating the suspect.
repulsive or offensive to sensibilities, it may be
presented. This will depend on the sound discretion f) DIRECT v CIRCUMSTANTIAL
of the court.
DIRECT EVIDENCE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
b) DOCUMENTARY That which proves the fact in The proof of fact or facts from
 Evidence may be: dispute without the aid of any which, taken either singly or
a. Medical Certification or Report on: inference or presumption. collectively, the existence of a
i. Medical examination particular fact in dispute may
ii. Physical examination The evidence presented be inferred as a necessary or
iii. Necropsy/ autopsy corresponds to the precise or probable consequence.
iv. Laboratory actual point at issue.
v. Exhumation
vi. Birth g) SCIENTIFIC
vii. Death  the questioning of a person suspected of having
b. Medical Expert Opinion committed an offense or of persons who are reluctant to
c. Deposition make a full disclosure of information in his possession
which is pertinent to the investigation.
c) TESTIMONIAL
 A physician may be commanded to appear in court. His h) ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE pursuant to the Rules of Electronic
testimony must be given orally and under oath or Evidence effective August 01, 2001, electronic documents,
affirmation signatures, electronic communications, audio, video ,
 A physician may be presented in court as an ordinary photos
witness and/or as an expert witness:

ORDINARY WITNESS EXPERT WITNESS

 A physician who testifies in  A physician on account of
court on matters perceived his training and experience
from his patient in the can give his opinion on a
course of physician-patient set of medical facts. He can
relationship. (Sec. 20, Rule deduce or infer something,
130, Rules of Court) determine the cause of
death, or render opinion
 Exception: Privilege of pertinent to the issue and
Communication between medical nature. (Sec. 48-49,
physician and patient. (Sec. Rule 130)
24 c, Rule 130)
 The probative value of the
expert medical testimony
depends upon the degree
of learning and experience
on the line of what the
medical expert is testifying,
the basis and logic of his
conclusion, and other
evidences tending to show
  This Court has faithfully observed and given effect to the
CASES: constitutional presumption of innocence which can only be
overcome by contrary proof beyond reasonable doubt -- one
"CHOY" TORRALBA vs.PEOPLE which requires moral certainty, a certainty that convinces and
G. R. No. 153699 August 22, 2005 satisfies the reason and conscience of those who are to act
upon it.
FACTS:  Accusation is not, according to the fundamental law,
 Petitioner Torralba was the host of a radio program called "Tug- synonymous with guilt, the prosecution must overthrow the
Ani ang Lungsod" which was aired over the radio station DYFX presumption of innocence with proof of guilt beyond
in Cebu City. reasonable doubt.
 On 12 September 1994, an information for libel was filed before  To meet this standard, there is need for the most careful
the (RTC) Tagbilaran City against petitioner Torralba. scrutiny of the testimony of the State, both oral and
 The information states: documentary, independently of whatever defense is offered by
 willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with deliberate and the accused.
malicious intent of maligning, impeaching and discrediting  this Court is compelled to overturn the decision of the Court of
the honesty, integrity, reputation, prestige and honor of Appeals due to insufficiency of evidence meriting a finding of
late CFI Judge Agapito Y. Hontanosas, who was during his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
[lifetime] a CFI Judge of Cebu and a man of good
reputation and social standing in the community and for PEOPLE vs. ENRIQUE TAGUBA AND MIRAFE TAGUBA
the purpose of exposing him to public hatred, contempt, G.R. No. 95207-17 January 10, 1994
disrespect and ridicule, in his radio program
 "AGAPITO HONTANOSAS AND CASTOR HONTANOSAS, ARE FACTS:
COLLABORATORS DURING THE WAR. IN OTHER WORDS,  Enrique Taguba and Mirafe Taguba were both charged with
THEY ARE TRAITORS TO THE LAND OF THEIR BIRTH." eight counts of illegal recruitment and three counts of estafa in
 "THE FATHER OF MANOLING HONTANOSAS HAD separate informations
TREACHEROUS BLOOD," and other words of similar import,  These witnesses testified that Enrique and Mirafe approached
 thereby maliciously exposing the family of the late Judge them on separate occasions and assured them that upon their
Agapito Hontanosas including Atty. Manuel L. Hontanosas, payment of a money they would be sent to Korror, Palau, to
one of the legitimate children of [the] late CFI Judge work variously as a waiter, fisherman, master cutter,
Agapito Y. Hontanosas to public hatred, dishonor, dressmaker, farmer, laborer, mason carpenter or macho
discredit, contempt and ridicule causing the latter to suffer dancer.
social humiliation, embarrassment, wounded feelings and  The consideration for their recruitment ranged from P2,200.00
mental anguish, to the damage and prejudice of said Atty. to P20,000.00 while the promised monthly wages ranged from
Manuel L. Hontanosas in the amount to be proved during $300.00 top $500.00.
the trial of the case.  The required payments were made by them from loans they
had contracted or from the proceeds of the sale of their
ISSUE: WON the sound recording is admissible as evidence? NO properties. However, no overseas employment materialized.
 Only Gilbert Fabrigas and Norman Sarrion were able to reach
RULING: Korror but after 3 months, during which they were not given
 The sound recording is not inadmissible because of its form any work, they were deported to Manila for expired visas. The
where a proper foundation has been laid to guarantee the rest of the complainants were never even able to leave the
genuineness of the recording. Philippines.
 Before a tape recording is admissible in evidence and given
probative value, the following requisites must first be Defendant’s Contention:
established: 1) Enrique Taguba
(1) a showing that the recording device was capable of taking  claimed that he merely happened to be at RAY/DECO
testimony; office when the complainants submitted their papers.
(2) a showing that the operator of the device was competent;  RAY/DECO is a corporation licensed to recruit workers for
(3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the employment abroad with which he had entered into a
recording; joint venture. From the office, the documents were
(4) a showing that changes, additions, or deletions have not submitted to the foreign employer, who brought them to
been made; Korror.
(5) a showing of the manner of the preservation of the  He later declared that a SPA issued to him by RAY/DECO
recording; authorized him to recruit and hire contract workers.
(6) identification of the speakers; and  It was by virtue of this authorization that he recruited the
(7) a showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made complainants.
without any kind of inducement.  At the same hearing, however, he retracted his statement,
reiterating his earlier claim that he had no participation in
 The establishment of a proper foundation for the admission of the complainants' transactions with the company.
a recording provided adequate assurance that proper  The sole exception was when he accompanied Gilbert
safeguards were observed for the preservation of the recording Fabrigas and Norman Sarrion to Korro upon RAY/DECO's
and for its protection against tampering. request.
 Here, one can easily discern that the proper foundation for the
admissibility of the tape recording was not adhered to. 2) Mirafe
 It bears stressing that Lim categorically admitted in the witness  averred that she was working as a domestic helper in
stand that he was not familiar at all with the process of tape Korror when the alleged irregularities happened.
recording and that he had to instruct his adopted daughter to  She presented a round-trip Continental Airline ticket
record petitioner Torralba’s radio broadcasts issued in her name on May 3, 1985, for Manila - Korror -
 Clearly, Shirly Lim, the person who actually recorded petitioner Manila and a certification issued by the Manager of Air
Torralba’s radio, should have been presented by the Nauru that on March 3, 1986, she was a passenger of Air
prosecution in order to lay the proper foundation for the Nauru Flight No. 420 bound for Manila from Korror.
admission of the purported tape recording for said date.
 Without the requisite authentication, there was no basis for the RTC: declared them guilty of all the charges
trial court to admit the tape recording – Exhibit "D" – in
evidence.
  the only authority the appellants could invoke was this special
The appellants argue that before one can be held guilty of illegal power of attorney although he did not speak of "several
recruitment, two elements have to be established, to wit, that papers". These did not include any license. It strikes us that if
(1) the offender is not a licensee or holder of authority to lawfully they had been issued a license to recruit, there would have
engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and been no reason why they did not present it in evidence to
(2) the offender undertook the recruitment activities defined exculpate them from liability under the Labor Code.
under Article 13(b) or any of the prohibited practices  Mirafe's defense of alibi is not acceptable either. The fact that
enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code. she left for Korror on May 3, 1985, and arrived in Manila on
 Their argument is that the prosecution has the burden of march 3, 1986, does not prove that in between these dates, she
proving beyond reasonable doubt each of the elements of did not come back to the Philippines to practice her deceptions.
the offense charged and that this burden had not been  The tickets and certification she submitted were not the best
discharged in the cases against them. evidence to establish her absence from the Philippines on the
dates the offenses were committed. What she should have
 The appellants also contend that the penalty of life submitted to the trial court was her passport, where the
imprisonment for illegal recruitment committed on a large scale holder's departure/arrivals are officially indicated.
is not applicable to them because the PD imposing this penalty  Curiously, the ticket issued to her on may 3, 1985, by
was published in the Official Gazette only on Feb 10, 1986. Continental for Manila - Korror - Manila was used by her in
 P.D. 2018 was thus not yet effective at the time of the alleged going to Korror but not in coming back to Manila. She claims to
commission of the crimes imputed to them. have returned to Manila on March 3, 1986, but via Air Nauru
 Only two of the eight complainants for illegal recruitment instead.
testified that they were recruited after Feb 10, 1986.  Why she did not avail herself of the pre-paid Continental return
 If at all, the appellants can only be convicted of eight separate trip ticket to Manila raises some doubt on her credibility.
counts of illegal recruitment under Art. 39 (c) of the Labor  Could it be that she had earlier used her return ticket in coming
Code, which is subject to a lesser penalty. back to Manila and that she went back later to Korror, from
 Regarding the charges of estafa, the appellants' claim they had which she returned to the Philippines on March 3, 1986, on
made no representation they had the capacity to recruit and board Air Nauru Flight 420?
send the complainants abroad.  At any rate, the certification by the manager of Air Nauru is
hearsay and inadmissible because he was not presented at the
Solicitor General: trial to affirm it.
 any party who asserts the affirmative of an issue has the burden
of presenting evidence required to obtain a favorable 2) NO. Enrique Taguba accompanied Norman Sarrion and Gilbert
judgment. Fabrigas to Korror on December 29, 1985. After a week, Taguba
 He agrees that PD 2018 is inapplicable and that the appellants came back to the Philippines, leaving the two to stay there for
can only be held guilty of eight counts of illegal recruitment and three months and fend for themselves without any work.
penalized in accordance with Sec. 39 (c) of the Labor Code.  All this happened before Enrique and Marife were arrested and
detained on March 9, 1986 and March 10, 1986, respectively
ISSUE:  The indisputable fact is that the appellants gave the distinct
1) WON the prosecution indeed failed to establish that the assurance that they had the ability to send the complainants
appellants had not been issued licenses to recruit for overseas abroad, employing false pretenses and imaginary business
employment – YES transactions to beguile their victims.
2) WON the appellees cannot be held liable for estafa because  The complainants willingly gave their hard-earned money to the
they were prevented from complying with their promise due to appellants in hopes of the overseas employment deceitfully
their incarceration – NO promised them by the latter.
3) WON appellants cannot be convicted of illegal recruitment on a  It is also evident from the testimonies of the complainants that
large scale - YES the deceptions were practiced on them by both appellants, who
cooperated with each other in fleecing the complainants of
RULING: their money.
1) YES. The record shows that the prosecution indeed failed to  A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
establish that the appellants had not been issued licenses to agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide
recruit for overseas employment. to commit it.
 It had moved to present Cecilia E. Curso, Chief of the Licensing  It is clear from the evidence of record that appellants, who
and Evaluation Division of the Philippine Overseas Employment were live-in partners, were moved by a common design to
Agency, so she could testify that the accused were not licensed victimize the complainants. As a consequence, they are
recruiters, but this was never done. enmeshed in the same criminal liability for their conspiracy,
which make the act of one the act of both.
Rule 131 Sec. 2, of the Rules of Court provides:
In criminal cases the burden of proof as to the offense charged 3) YES. The Court agrees that the appellants cannot be convicted
lies on the prosecution. A negative fact alleged by the of illegal recruitment on a large scale because only two of the
prosecution need not be proved unless it is an essential complainants, Jesus Garcia and Elena Santiago, categorically
ingredient of the offense. testified that their recruitment came after February 10, 1986.
 This was the date when P.D. 2018, the law defining and
 Non-possession of a license to recruit is an essential ingredient penalizing illegal recruitment in a large scale, took effect.
of the crime of illegal recruiting. As it is an indispensible  P.D. 2018 cannot apply to the appellants retroactively as it
requisite for the conviction of the pretended recruiter, the would be an ex post facto law to them. A law is ex post facto if
burden of establishing this element is upon the prosecution. it refers to a criminal act, punishes an act which was innocent
 Here, the prosecution cannot deny its failure to show that no when done, and retroacts to the disadvantage of the accused.
license had indeed been issued to either of the appellees by the  Prior to the said date, recruiting on a large scale was not yet
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. punished with the penalty imposed in the said decree.
 Regarding on the SPA, Enrique's authority was confined to  Moreover, each of the 8 informations for illegal recruitment
negotiating with foreign employers for the appointment of charged the appellants with illegally recruiting only one person.
RAY/DECO as their agency in the recruiting of Filipino workers  It is a basic right of the accused to be informed of the nature
for employment abroad. What he was supposed to recruit was and cause of the accusation against him and, if he is found
not Filipino overseas workers but the foreign employers to guilty, to be penalized only for the offense specified in the
which the workers were to be assigned. information or necessarily included in such offense.
 Under the decree, illegal recruiting on a large scale can take
place only when it is committed against three or more persons,
individually or as a group.
 PP. vs. Taan
506 SCRA 219

FACTS:
 Accused-appellant Eduardo Taan “Bebot” was found guilty of
murder aggravated by the use of an unlicensed firearm and
sentenced to death
 EDUARDO TAAN, alias "BEBOT", in conspiracy with DANNY DOE,
true name has not yet been fully established, armed with a big
stone and an unlicensed short firearm attack, assault, hold, hit,
strike, tie and shoot Ricardo Ladaga, inflicting upon him the
following injuries:
a) Depressed Fracture; 3 cm. x 4 cm.; oblong in shape; mid-
temporo-parietal area; Right.
b) Fracture, 1 cm. in diameter, circular in shape, mid-posterior
aspect of the hard palate, most probably of a gunshot wound
entrance.
c) Skull Fracture, 1.3 cm. in diameter, circular in shape, upper
third of the occipital area, most probably of a gunshot wound
exit, Right.
d) Avulsion, teeth, Left and Right Lower Central Incissors. [sic]
e) Avulsion, tooth, Left Lateral Lower Incissor [sic].

 which caused the instantaneous death of said Ricardo Ladaga,

to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.

During his arraignment: Taan, assisted by counsel, pleaded not

guilty to the charge. Thereafter, trial ensued.

The prosecution’s evidence consist of the testimonies of (1) Juanito

Ochinang, a relative of the victim, Ricardo Ladaga (Ladaga), and an
eyewitness to the shooting incident;6 (2) Dr. Danilo Rebugio,
Municipal Health Officer of Laoac, Pangasinan, who conducted the
autopsy on the body of Lada

ISSUE:

RULING:
 Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., PP. vs. Yatar, 428 SCRA 504
509 U.S., 509; 593–594
FACTS:
Brief Fact Summary: The Plaintiffs, Daubert and other minors  On June 30, 1998, Kathylyn Uba stayed in her grandmother’s
(Plaintiffs), suffered limb reduction birth defects. They claim the (Isabel Dawang’s) house, despite her intention to go forth
defects were caused when their mothers ingested drugs Tuguegarao City, as her other former’s housemate-relatives left
manufactured by the Defendant, Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in the morning.
(Defendant), while they were pregnant.  At 10:00 am, accused-appellant Joel Yatar was seen at the back
of the same house where Kathylyn stayed during said date.
Synopsis of Rule of Law: To be admissible, expert scientific  At 12:30 pm, Judilyn, Kathylyn’s first cousin saw Yatar, who was
testimony that is derived from research done for the purpose of then wearing a white shirt with collar and black pants,
litigation must show that the conclusions were reached after descended from the second floor and was pacing back and
following recognized scientific methods of research. forth at the back of Isabel Dawang’s house, Judilyn didn’t find
this unusual since Yatar and his wife used to live therein.
Facts.  At 1:30 PM, Yatar called upon Judilyn, telling the latter that he
 The minor Plaintiffs were injured when their mothers ingested would not be getting the lumber he had been gathering.
drugs manufactured by the Defendant.  This time, Judilyn noticed that Yatar is now wearing a black shirt
 According to the Plaintiffs’ experts, the drug manufactured by (without collar) and blue pants; and noticed that the latter’s
the Defendant caused the deformities. However, the majority eyes were “reddish and sharp”.
of the scientific field does not agree that the drug causes limb  Accused-appellant asked about the whereabouts of Judilyn’s
deformities and the Federal Drug Authority (FDA) continues to husband, as the former purports to talk with the latter. Then,
approve of its use in pregnant women. Yatar immediately left when Judilyn’s husband arrived.
 In the evening, when Isabel Dawang arrived home, she found
Issue. Whether the expert testimony offered by the Plaintiffs is the lights of her house turned off, the door of the ground floor
admissible. opened, and the containers, which she asked Kathylyn to fill up,
were still empty.
Held. The Plaintiffs’ expert testimony is not admissible.  Upon ascending the second floor to check whether the teenage
 When it comes to expert testimony and scientific theory, it is girl is upstairs, Isabel found that the door therein was tied with
hard for the courts to determine what is a fact and what is a rope.
scientific theory admissible in court.  When Isabel succeeded opening the tied door with a knife, and
 Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (Rule 702) is now the standard for as she groped in the darkness of the second level of her house,
admitting expert scientific testimony. she felt Kathylyn’s lifeless and naked body, with some intestines
 Under Rule 702, there are several factors to consider when protruding out from it.
determining whether expert testimony is admissible:  Soon after, police came to the scene of the crime to provide
i. Whether the theory is generally accepted in the scientific assistance. Therein, they found Kathylyn’s clothes and
community; undergarments beside her body.
ii. Whether the theory/method has been subjected to peer  Amongst others, a white collared shirt splattered with blood
review and publication; was also found 50-meters away from Isabel’s house.
iii. Whether the theory/method has been tested or can be  Meanwhile, semen has also been found upon examination of
tested; Kathylyn’s cadaver. When subjected under DNA testing, results
iv. Whether the potential or known rate of error is showed that the DNA comprising the sperm specimen is
acceptable. identical to Yatar’s genotype.
 It is the court’s responsibility to resolve disputes among the  Yatar was accused of the special complex crime of Rape with
respected and credentialed scientists about matters within the Homicide and was convicted for the same by the Regional Trial
scientists’ expertise and to reject testimony if it is not obtained Court of Tabuk, Kalinga.
by the scientific method.  Thereafter, he made an appeal to the Honorable Supreme
 If expert testimony is shown to be the result of research Court in order to assail the court a quo’s decision.
conducted for the purpose of litigation, the expert must show  On appeal, Yatar avers that:
precisely how they reached their conclusions and point to an (1) the trial court erred in giving much weight to the evidence
objective source to show they followed the scientific method as DNA testing or analysis done on him, in lieu of the seminal
it is practiced by at least a recognized minority in their field. fluid found inside the victim’s (cadaver) vaginal canal;
Because the Plaintiffs’ experts cannot do this, the testimony is (2) the blood sample taken from is violative of his
not admissible. constitutional right against self-incrimination; and the
 The Plaintiffs’ experts did not conduct their research conduct of DNA testing is also in violation on prohibition
independent of the litigation and the theories have not been against ex-post facto laws.
published in scientific journals or reviewed by peers, thought
there has been ample time to do so because the theories and ISSUE: Whether or not the result of the DNA testing done on the
litigation has been around for a decade. sperm specimen may be used as evidence for Yatar’s conviction?
 Furthermore, under Rule 702, the Plaintiffs must show that the
evidence they offer would assist the trier of fact in determining RULING:
a factual issue.
 The Plaintiffs cannot show causation directly and attempt to  Noteworthy is the fact this case was decided on 2004, which
show it through circumstantial evidence provided by their was (3) years before the Rules on DNA evidence took effect.
experts. The testimony cannot establish that the defects were  The Supreme Court in this case ruled based on the US case of
not caused by an independent cause, since limb reduction Daubert vs. Merrell Dow as a precedent.
defects occur in the babies of mothers who did not take the  In the said US jurisprudence, it was ruled that pertinent
drug. evidence based on scientifically valid principles could be used,
 The Plaintiffs’ experts cannot say that the drug more than so long as the same is RELEVANT and RELIABLE. Hence, it was
doubled their risk of the defect, only that there was a statistical called then as the DAUBERT TEST.
relationship between he drug and the birth defect.:  RULE: At present, SECTION 7, RULES ON DNA EVIDENCE may be
used as the legal basis. Sec. 7 of the Rules on DNA evidence,
Daubert Test in Forensic Evidence: it was ruled that pertinent which took effect on 2007, provides for the factors to be
evidence based on scientifically valid principles could be used, so considered in assessing the probative weight or value to be
long as the same is RELEVANT and RELIABLE. given on evidence derived or generated from DNA testing.
 Such factors, are, to wit:
(a) The chain of custody, including how the biological samples
were collected, how they were handled, and the possibility
of contamination of the samples;
 (b) The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure  Buan also found that the vaginal swab from Daisy contained
followed in analyzing the samples, the advantages and Vallejo’s DNA profile.
disadvantages of the procedure, and compliance with the  Meanwhile, Vallejo already executed a sworn statement
scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests; admitting the crime. But when trial came, Vallejo insisted that
(c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by the sworn statement was coerced; that he was threatened by
any reputable standards-setting institution and the the cops; that the DNA samples should be inadmissible because
qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. If the the body and the clothing of Daisy (including his clothing –
laboratory is not accredited, the relevant experience of the which in effect is an admission placing him in the crime scene –
laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall be though not discussed in the case) were already soaked in
properly established; and smirchy waters, hence contaminated.
(d) The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter provided.  Vallejo was convicted and was sentenced to death by the trial
court.
APPLICATION – DAUBERT TEST:
 The Honorable Supreme Court in this case upheld the probative ISSUE: Whether or not the DNA samples gathered are admissible as
value of the DNA test result yielded from the analysis of Yatar’s evidence.
blood sample from that of the semen specimen obtained from
the cadaver’s vaginal canal. HELD: Yes.
 Accordingly, it held that the DNA evidence is both reliable and  The Supreme Court ruled that the findings of Dr. Buan are
relevant. conclusive. The court reiterated that even though DNA
 In ascertaining the relevance of the evidence in a case, it evidence is merely circumstantial, it can still convict the
must be determined whether or not the same directly accused considering that it corroborates all other circumstantial
relates to a fact in issue, as to induce belief in its existence evidence gathered in this rape-slay case.
or nonexistence. In this case, the evidence is relevant in  The Supreme Court also elucidated on the admissibility of DNA
determining the perpetrator of the crime; evidence in this case and for the first time recognized its
 In giving probative value on the DNA testing result, yielded evidentiary value in the Philippines, thus:
from the analysis of Yatar’s blood sample from that of the  DNA is an organic substance found in a person’s cells
biological sample (semen) obtained from the victim’s which contains his or her genetic code.
vaginal canal, the trial court considered the qualification of  Except for identical twins, each person’s DNA profile is
the DNA analyst, the facility or laboratory in which the distinct and unique.
DNA testing had been performed, and the methodology  When a crime is committed, material is collected from the
used in performing the DNA test. In the said case, the DNA scene of the crime or from the victim’s body for the suspect’s
test was done at the UP National Science Research DNA. This is the evidence sample. The evidence sample is then
Institute (NSRI) . The method used was Polymerase chain matched with the reference sample taken from the suspect and
reaction (PCR) amplification method by Short Tandem the victim.
Repeat (STR) analysis, which enables a tiny amount of DNA  The purpose of DNA testing is to ascertain whether an
sequence to be replicated exponentially in a span of few association exists between the evidence sample and the
hours. Hence, sufficient DNA analysis may be made easier reference sample.
even with small DNA samples at hand. The analyst who  The samples collected are subjected to various chemical
performed the procedure was Dr. Maria Corazon Abogado processes to establish their profile.
de Ungria, who is a duly qualified expert witness on DNA  The test may yield three possible results:
print or identification techniques. 1) The samples are different and therefore must have
originated from different sources (exclusion). This
CONCLUSION: Hence, apart from the other sets of circumstantial conclusion is absolute and requires no further analysis or
evidence correctly appreciated by the trial court, the said DNA discussion;
evidence is sufficient to be admitted as evidence to warrant the 2) It is not possible to be sure, based on the results of the
accused-appellant’s conviction of the crime of Rape with Homicide. test, whether the samples have similar DNA types
(inconclusive). This might occur for a variety of reasons
PP vs. Vallejo including degradation, contamination, or failure of some
G.R. No. 144656. aspect of the protocol. Various parts of the analysis might
then be repeated with the same or a different sample, to
FACTS: obtain a more conclusive result; or
 On July 10, 1999 (Rosario, Cavite), at about 1pm, 9-year old 3) The samples are similar, and could have originated from
Daisy Diolola went to her neighbor’s house to seek help in an the same source (inclusion). In such a case, the samples
assignment. are found to be similar, the analyst proceeds to determine
 It was a Saturday. Gerrico Vallejo, the neighbor, helped Daisy in the statistical significance of the Similarity.
her assignment.
 At 5pm of the same day, Daisy’s mom noticed that her child  In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore,
wasn’t home yet. She went to Vallejo’s house and Daisy wasn’t courts should consider, among others things, the following
there. 7pm, still no word of Daisy’s whereabouts. data: how the samples were collected, how they were handled,
 The next morning, Daisy’s body was found tied to a tree near a the possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure
river bank. Apparently, she was raped and thereafter strangled followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper
to death. standards and procedures were followed in conducting the
 In the afternoon of July 11, the police went to Vallejo’s house to tests, and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the
question the latter as he was one of the last persons with the tests.
victim. But prior to that, some neighbors have already told the
police that Vallejo was acting strangely during the afternoon of
July 10.
 The police requested for the clothes that Vallejo wore the day
Daisy disappeared. Vallejo complied and the clothes were
submitted for processing.
 The person who processed the clothing was Pet Byron Buan, a
Forensic Biologist of the NBI. At the instance of the local fiscal,
he also took buccal swabs (mouth/cheek swabs) from Vallejo
and a vaginal swab from Daisy’s body for DNA testing.
 Dr. Buan found that there were bloodstains in Vallejo’s clothing
– Blood Type A, similar to that of the victim, while Vallejo’s Herrera vs. Alba
Blood Type is O. G.R. No. 148220, 15 June 2005
FACTS: came from complainant and that it was complainant and the
 On 14 May 1998, then thirteen-year-old Rosendo Alba law enforcers who instigated the whole incident.
(respondent), represented by his mother Armi Alba, filed before  When she was asked if she had sent the text messages
the trial court a petition for compulsory recognition, support contained in complainant’s cellphone and which reflected her
and damages against petitioner. cellphone number, respondent admitted those that were not
 On 7 August 1998, petitioner filed his answer with counterclaim incriminating but claimed she did not remember those that
where he denied that he is the biological father of respondent. clearly showed she was transacting with complainant.
Petitioner also denied physical contact with respondent’s  Respondent thus stated that she met with complainant only to
mother. tell the latter to stop calling and texting her, not to get the One
 Respondent filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) as pre-arranged.
testing to abbreviate the proceedings.
 To support the motion, respondent presented the testimony of Issue: Whether or not the text messages are admissible as evidence
Saturnina C. Halos, Ph.D. When she testified, Dr. Halos was an in court?
Associate Professor at De La Salle University where she taught
Cell Biology. Held: Yes.
 She was also head of the University of the Philippines Natural  Complainant was able to prove by his testimony in conjunction
Sciences Research Institute (UP-NSRI), a DNA analysis with the text messages from respondent duly presented before
laboratory. She was a former professor at the University of the the Committee that the latter asked for(P1,000,000.00) in
Philippines in Diliman, Quezon City, where she developed the exchange for a favorable decision of the former’s pending case
Molecular Biology Program and taught Molecular Biology. with the CA.
 In her testimony, Dr. Halos described the process for DNA  The text messages were properly admitted by the Committee
paternity testing and asserted that the test had an accuracy since the same are now covered by Sec 1(k), Rule 2 of the Rules
rate of 99.9999% in establishing paternity. on Electronic Evidence65 which provides:
 Petitioner opposed DNA paternity testing and contended that
it has not gained acceptability. “Ephemeral electronic communication” refers to telephone
 Petitioner further argued that DNA paternity testing violates his conversations, text messages . . . and other electronic forms of
right against self-incrimination. communication the evidence of which is not recorded or
retained.”
ISSUE: Whether or not DNA Paternity testing violates Herrera’s right
against self-incrimination.  Under Section 2, Rule 11 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence,
“Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by the
RULING: No. testimony of a person who was a party to the same or who has
 It is true that in 1997, the Supreme Court ruled in Pe Lim vs CA personal knowledge thereof”
that DNA testing is not yet recognized in the Philippines and at  In this case, complainant who was the recipient of said
the time when he questioned the order of the trial court, the messages and therefore had personal knowledge thereof
prevailing doctrine was the Pe Lim case; testified on their contents and import.
 however, in 2002 there is already no question as to the  Respondent herself admitted that the cellphone number
acceptability of DNA test results as admissible object evidence reflected in complainant’s cellphone from which the messages
in Philippine courts. This was the decisive ruling in the case of originated was hers.
People vs Vallejo (2002).  Moreover, any doubt respondent may have had as to the
 It is also considered that the Vallejo Guidelines be considered admissibility of the text messages had been laid to rest when
by the courts. The Vallejo Guidelines determines weight and she and her counsel signed and attested to the veracity of the
probative value of DNA test results. text messages between her and complainant.
 The Vallejo Guidelines:  It is also well to remember that in administrative cases,
1. how the samples were collected; technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly
2. how they were handled; applied.
3. the possibility of contamination of the samples;  The Court has no doubt as to the probative value of the text
4. the procedure followed in analyzing the samples; messages as evidence in determining the guilt or lack thereof of
5. whether the proper standards and procedures were respondent in this case.
followed in conducting the tests; and
6. the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. Garcilliano vs HRET
GR 170338
Nunez vs. Cruz Apao
455 SCRA 288 Facts:
 During the hype of Arroyo administration, a new controversy
Facts: arises. During the 2007 election the conversation of President
 The complaint arose out of respondent’s solicitation of One Arroyo and the herein petitioner Virgilio Garciliano, COMELEC
Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) from Zaldy Nuez (Complainant) in regional director, regarding the desire of the president to have
exchange for a speedy and favorable decision of the latter’s a favourable outcome in terms of his senatoriables.
pending case in the Court of Appeals.  Such conversation was recorded and was played during the
 Complainant earlier sought the assistance of Imbestigador. house of representative investigation. Because of such turn of
 The crew of the TV program accompanied him to PAOCCF-SPG events, a petition was filed before the court praying that such
where he lodged a complaint against respondent for extortion. playing of the illegally seized communication was in violation of
 Thereafter, he communicated with respondent again to verify if RA 4200 or the anti-wire tapping law.
the latter was still asking for the money and to set up a meeting  Also such petition for injunction prays that the Senate
with her. committee be prevented from further conducting such
 Upon learning that respondent’s offer of a favorable decision in investigation for the basic reason that there was no proper
exchange for One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) was still publication of the senate rules, empowering them to make such
standing, the plan for the entrapment operation was investigation of the unlawfully seized documents.
formulated by Imbestigador in cooperation with the PAOCC.
Issue: Whether or not there was proper publication of the rules as
to empower the senate to further proceed with their investigation?

 During the hearing of this case, respondent would like the court
to believe that she never had any intention of committing a Held: No, the Supreme Court mentioned the following:
crime, that the offer of a million pesos for a favorable decision  The Senate cannot be allowed to continue with the conduct of
the questioned legislative inquiry without duly published rules
 of procedure, in clear derogation of the constitutional  A civil case damages was filed by petitioner Socorro Ramirez in
requirement. the Quezon City RTC alleging that the private respondent, Ester
Garcia, in a confrontation in the latter’s office, allegedly vexed,
Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution explicitly insulted and humiliated her in a “hostile and furious mood” and
provides that "the Senate or the House of Representatives, or any of in a manner offensive to petitioner’s dignity and personality,”
its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation contrary to morals, good customs and public policy.”
in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure."  In support of her claim, petitioner produced a verbatim
transcript of the event and sought damages. The transcript on
 The requisite of publication of the rules is intended to satisfy which the civil case was based was culled from a tape recording
the basic requirements of due process. of the confrontation made by petitioner.
 Publication is indeed imperative, for it will be the height of  As a result of petitioner’s recording of the event and alleging
injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the that the said act of secretly taping the confrontation was illegal,
transgression of a law or rule of which he had no notice private respondent filed a criminal case before the Pasay RTC
whatsoever, not even a constructive one. for violation of Republic Act 4200, entitled “An Act to prohibit
 What constitutes publication is set forth in Article 2 of the Civil and penalize wire tapping and other related violations of
Code, which provides that "laws shall take effect after 15 days private communication, and other purposes.”
following the completion of their publication either in the  Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information, which the
Official Gazette, or in a newspaper of general circulation in the RTC later on granted, on the ground that the facts charged do
Philippines." not constitute an offense, particularly a violation of R.A. 4200.
 Respondents justify their non-observance of the  The CA declared the RTC’s decision null and void and denied the
constitutionally mandated publication by arguing that the rules petitioner’s MR, hence the instant petition.
have never been amended since 1995 and, despite that, they
are published in booklet form available to anyone for free, and Issue: W/N the Anti-Wiretapping Act applies in recordings by one of
accessible to the public at the Senate’s internet web page. the parties in the conversation
 The Court does not agree. The absence of any amendment to
the rules cannot justify the Senate’s defiance of the clear and Held: Yes.
unambiguous language of Section 21, Article VI of the Section 1 of R.A. 4200 entitled, ”An Act to Prohibit and Penalized
Constitution. Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations of Private
 The organic law instructs, without more, that the Senate or its Communication and Other Purposes,” provides:
committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation only in
accordance with duly published rules of procedure, and does Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being
not make any distinction whether or not these rules have authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken
undergone amendments or revision. word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or
 The constitutional mandate to publish the said rules prevails arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
over any custom, practice or tradition followed by the Senate. communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known
 The invocation by the respondents of the provisions of R.A. No. as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or
8792,otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, tape recorder, or however otherwise described.
to support their claim of valid publication through the internet
is all the more incorrect.  The aforestated provision clearly and unequivocally makes it
 R.A. 8792 considers an electronic data message or an electronic illegal for any person, not authorized by all the parties to any
document as the functional equivalent of a written document private communication to secretly record such communication
only for evidentiary purposes by means of a tape recorder.
 In other words, the law merely recognizes the admissibility in  The law makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to
evidence (for their being the original) of electronic data be penalized by the statute ought to be a party other than or
messages and/or electronic documents. different from those involved in the private communication.
 It does not make the internet a medium for publishing laws,  The statute’s intent to penalize all persons unauthorized to
rules and regulations. make such recording is underscored by the use of the qualifier
 Given this discussion, the respondent Senate Committees, “any”. Consequently, as respondent Court of Appeals correctly
therefore, could not, in violation of the Constitution, use its concluded, “even a (person) privy to a communication who
unpublished rules in the legislative inquiry subject of these records his private conversation with another without the
consolidated cases. knowledge of the latter (will) qualify as a violator” under this
 The conduct of inquiries in aid of legislation by the Senate has provision of R.A. 4200.
to be deferred until it shall have caused the publication of the  A perusal of the Senate Congressional Records, moreover,
rules, because it can do so only "in accordance with its duly supports the respondent court’s conclusion that in enacting
published rules of procedure." R.A. 4200 our lawmakers indeed contemplated to make illegal,
 Indeed the inquiry to be conducted by the senate in aid of unauthorized tape recording of private conversations or
legislation cannot proceed for the reason that the rules that communications taken either by the parties themselves or by
they will observe was not properly published as provided by the third persons.
Fundamental Law of the land.  The nature of the conversations is immaterial to a violation of
 Such inquiry if allowed without observance of the required the statute. The substance of the same need not be specifically
publication will put a person’s life, liberty and property at stake alleged in the information.
without due process of law.  What R.A. 4200 penalizes are the acts of secretly overhearing,
 Also, the further assertion of the senate that they already intercepting or recording private communications by means of
published such rules through their web page, in observance of the devices enumerated therein.
the RA 8792 or the Electronic Commerce Act was only viewed  The mere allegation that an individual made a secret recording
by the court as matter of evidence and still does not conforme of a private communication by means of a tape recorder would
with what the constitution propounded. suffice to constitute an offense under Sec 1 of R.A. 4200.
 In this regard the high court granted the petition for injunction  As the Solicitor General pointed out in his COMMENT before
preventing the senate to conduct such inquiry in aid of the respondent court: “Nowhere (in the said law) is it required
legislation. that before one can be regarded as a violator, the nature of the
conversation, as well as its communication to a third person
should be professed.”

 Petitioner’s contention that the phrase “private

Ramirez vs CA communication” in Sec 1 of R.A. 4200 does not include “private
GR 93833 conversations” narrows the ordinary meaning of the word
“communication” to a point of absurdity.
Facts:
 The word communicate comes from the latin word  The Court finds nothing in Section 4(a)(1) that calls for the
communicare, meaning “to share or to impart.” application of the strict scrutiny standard since no fundamental
 In its ordinary signification, communication connotes the act of freedom, like speech, is involved in punishing what is essentially
sharing or imparting signification, communication connotes the a condemnable act accessing the computer system of another
act of sharing or imparting, as in a conversation, or signifies the without right. It is a universally condemned conduct.
“process by which meanings or thoughts are shared between  Besides, a clients engagement of an ethical hacker requires an
individuals through a common system of symbols (as language agreement between them as to the extent of the search, the
signs or gestures)” methods to be used, and the systems to be tested. Since the
 These definitions are broad enough to include verbal or non- ethical hacker does his job with prior permission from the
verbal, written or expressive communications of “meanings or client, such permission would insulate him from the coverage of
thoughts” which are likely to include the emotionally-charged Section 4(a)(1).
exchange, on February 22, 1988, between petitioner and  Hence, valid and constitutional.
private respondent, in the privacy of the latter’s office.
 Any doubts about the legislative body’s meaning of the phrase Section 4(a)(3) of the Cybercrime Law
“private communication” are, furthermore, put to rest by the (3) Data Interference. The intentional or reckless alteration,
fact that the terms “conversation” and “communication” were damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic
interchangeably used by Senator Tañada in his Explanatory document, or electronic data message, without right, including the
Note to the Bill. introduction or transmission of viruses.

 Petitioners claim that Section 4(a)(3) suffers from overbreadth

Disini vs Sect of Justice in that, while it seeks to discourage data interference, it
GR 203335 intrudes into the area of protected speech and expression,
creating a chilling and deterrent effect on these guaranteed
FACTS: freedoms.
 Petitioners assail the validity of several provision of the  Under the overbreadth doctrine, a proper governmental
Republic Act (R.A.) 10175, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of purpose, constitutionally subject to state regulation, may not
2012. be achieved by means that unnecessarily sweep its subject
 Petitioners claim that the means adopted by the cybercrime broadly, thereby invading the area of protected freedoms.But
law for regulating undesirable cyberspace activities violate Section 4(a)(3) does not encroach on these freedoms at all. It
certain of their constitutional rights. The government of course simply punishes what essentially is a form of vandalism,the act
asserts that the law merely seeks to reasonably put order into of willfully destroying without right the things that belong to
cyberspace activities, punish wrongdoings, and prevent hurtful others, in this case their computer data, electronic document,
attacks on the system. or electronic data message. Such act has no connection to
guaranteed freedoms. There is no freedom to destroy other
ISSUES: Are the following provisions valid and constitutional? peoples computer systems and private documents.
a. Sec 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access;  Besides, the overbreadth challenge places on petitioners the
b. Section 4(a)(3) on Data Interference; heavy burden of proving that under no set of circumstances will
c. Section 4(a)(6) on Cyber-squatting; Section 4(a)(3) be valid.Petitioner has failed to discharge this
d. Section 4(b)(3) on Identity Theft; burden.
e. Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex;  Hence, valid and constitutional.
f. Section 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography;
g. Section 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited Commercial Communications; Section 4(a)(6) of the Cybercrime Law
h. Section 4(c)(4) on Libel; (6) Cyber-squatting. The acquisition of domain name over the
i. Section 5 on Aiding or Abetting and Attempt in the Commission internet in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy the reputation, and
of Cybercrimes; deprive others from registering the same, if such a domain name is:
j. Section 6 on the Penalty of One Degree Higher;
k. Section 7 on the Prosecution under both the Revised Penal (i) Similar, identical, or confusingly similar to an existing
Code (RPC) and R.A. 10175; trademark registered with the appropriate government agency at
l. Section 8 on Penalties; the time of the domain name registration;
m. Section 12 on Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data;
n. Section 13 on Preservation of Computer Data; (ii) Identical or in any way similar with the name of a
o. Section 14 on Disclosure of Computer Data; person other than the registrant, in case of a personal name; and
p. Section 15 on Search, Seizure and Examination of Computer
Data; (iii) Acquired without right or with intellectual property
q. Section 17 on Destruction of Computer Data; interests in it.
r. Section 19 on Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data;
s. Section 20 on Obstruction of Justice;  Petitioners claim that Section 4(a)(6) or cyber-squatting violates
t. Section 24 on Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating the equal protection clausein that, not being narrowly tailored,
Center (CICC); and it will cause a user using his real name to suffer the same fate
u. Section 26(a) on CICCs Powers and Functions. as those who use aliases or take the name of another in satire,
parody, or any other literary device.
Some petitioners also raise the constitutionality of related Articles  The law is reasonable in penalizing the offender for acquiring
353, 354, 361, and 362 of the RPC on the crime of libel. the domain name in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy
reputation, or deprive others who are not ill-motivated of the
HELD: rightful opportunity of registering the same.
Section 4(a)(1) of the Cybercrime Law  Hence, valid and constitutional.
Section 4. Cybercrime Offenses. The following acts
constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable under this Act:

(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of

computer data and systems:
(1) Illegal Access. The access to the whole or any part of a computer
system without right.

 Petitioners contend that Section 4(a)(1) fails to meet the strict Section 4(b)(3) of the Cybercrime Law
scrutiny standard required of laws that interfere with the b) Computer-related Offenses:
fundamental rights of the people and should thus be struck (3) Computer-related Identity Theft. The intentional acquisition, use,
down. misuse, transfer, possession, alteration, or deletion of identifying
information belonging to another, whether natural or juridical,  Likewise, engaging in sexual acts privately through internet
without right: Provided: that if no damage has yet been caused, the connection, perceived by some as a right, has to be balanced
penalty imposable shall be one (1) degree lower. with the mandate of the State to eradicate white slavery and
the exploitation of women.
 Petitioners claim that Section 4(b)(3) violates the constitutional  Hence, valid and constitutional.
rights to due process and to privacy and correspondence, and
transgresses the freedom of the press. Section 4(c)(2) of the Cybercrime Law
 In Morfe v. Mutuc,it ruled that the right to privacy exists (2) Child Pornography. The unlawful or prohibited acts defined and
independently of its identification with liberty; it is in itself fully punishable by Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography
deserving of constitutional protection. Act of 2009, committed through a computer system: Provided, That
 Relevant to any discussion of the right to privacy is the concept the penalty to be imposed shall be (1) one degree higher than that
known as the "Zones of Privacy." provided for in Republic Act No. 9775.
 Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in our laws.
Within these zones, any form of intrusion is impermissible  The above merely expands the scope of the Anti-Child
unless excused by law and in accordance with customary legal Pornography Act of 2009(ACPA) to cover identical activities in
process. The meticulous regard we accord to these zones arises cyberspace.
not only from our conviction that the right to privacy is a  In theory, nothing prevents the government from invoking the
"constitutional right" and "the right most valued by civilized ACPA when prosecuting persons who commit child
men," but also from our adherence to the Universal Declaration pornography using a computer system. Actually, ACPAs
of Human Rights which mandates that, "no one shall be definition of child pornography already embraces the use of
subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy" and "electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any other
"everyone has the right to the protection of the law against means."
such interference or attacks."  Of course, the law makes the penalty higher by one degree
 In the Matter of the Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas when the crime is committed in cyberspace. But no one can
Corpus of Sabio v. Senator Gordon, 535 Phil. 687, 714-715 complain since the intensity or duration of penalty is a
(2006). legislative prerogative and there is rational basis for such higher
 Two constitutional guarantees create these zones of privacy: penalty.
(a) the right against unreasonable searchesand seizures, which  The potential for uncontrolled proliferation of a particular piece
is the basis of the right to be let alone, and of child pornography when uploaded in the cyberspace is
(b) the right to privacy of communication and correspondence incalculable.
 Hence, valid and constitutional.
 In assessing the challenge that the State has impermissibly
intruded into these zones of privacy, a court must determine Section 4(c)(3) of the Cybercrime Law
whether a person has exhibited a reasonable expectation of (3) Unsolicited Commercial Communications. The transmission of
privacy and, if so, whether that expectation has been violated commercial electronic communication with the use of computer
by unreasonable government intrusion. system which seeks to advertise, sell, or offer for sale products and
 Petitioners simply fail to show how government effort to curb services are prohibited unless:
computer-related identity theft violates the right to privacy and
correspondence as well as the right to due process of law. (i) There is prior affirmative consent from the recipient; or
 Clearly, what this section regulates are specific actions: the
acquisition, use, misuse or deletion of personal identifying data (ii) The primary intent of the communication is for service and/or
of another. There is no fundamental right to acquire anothers administrative announcements from the sender to its existing users,
personal data. subscribers or customers; or
 Further, petitioners fear that Section 4(b)(3) violates the
freedom of the press in that journalists would be hindered from (iii) The following conditions are present:
accessing the unrestricted user account of a person in the news
to secure information about him that could be published. (aa) The commercial electronic communication contains a simple,
 The Court held, the press, whether in quest of news reporting valid, and reliable way for the recipient to reject receipt of further
or social investigation, has nothing to fear since a special commercial electronic messages (opt-out) from the same source;
circumstance is present to negate intent to gain which is
required by this Section. (bb) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely
 Hence, valid and constitutional. disguise the source of the electronic message; and

Section 4(c)(1) of the Cybercrime Law (cc) The commercial electronic communication does not purposely
(c) Content-related Offenses: include misleading information in any part of the message in order
(1) Cybersex. The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or to induce the recipients to read the message.
operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual
organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for  The above penalizes the transmission of unsolicited commercial
favor or consideration. communications, also known as "spam."
 The term "spam" surfaced in early internet chat rooms and
 Petitioners claim that the above violates the freedom of interactive fantasy games.
expression clause.They express fear that private  One who repeats the same sentence or comment was said to
communications of sexual character between husband and wife be making a "spam."
or consenting adults, which are not regarded as crimes under  The Government, represented by the Solicitor General, points
the penal code, would now be regarded as crimes when done out that unsolicited commercial communications or spams are
"for favor" in cyberspace. In common usage, the term "favor" a nuisance that wastes the storage and network capacities of
includes "gracious kindness," "a special privilege or right internet service providers, reduces the efficiency of commerce
granted or conceded," or "a token of love (as a ribbon) usually and technology, and interferes with the owners peaceful
worn conspicuously." enjoyment of his property.
 This meaning given to the term "favor" embraces socially  Transmitting spams amounts to trespass to ones privacy since
tolerated trysts. The law as written would invite law the person sending out spams enters the recipients domain
enforcement agencies into the bedrooms of married couples or without prior permission. The OSG contends that commercial
consenting individuals. speech enjoys less protection in law.
 These have never been outlawed as nuisance since people
 The Act actually seeks to punish cyber prostitution, white slave might have interest in such ads. What matters is that the
trade, and pornography for favor and consideration. This recipient has the option of not opening or reading these mail
includes interactive prostitution and pornography, i.e., by
webcam.
 ads. That is true with spams. Their recipients always have the of when the penal code provisions on libel were enacted. The
option to delete or not to read them. culture associated with internet media is distinct from that of
 To prohibit the transmission of unsolicited ads would deny a print.
person the right to read his emails, even unsolicited commercial  The internet is characterized as encouraging a freewheeling,
ads addressed to him. Unsolicited advertisements are anything-goes writing style. In a sense, they are a world apart in
legitimate forms of expression. terms of quickness of the readers reaction to defamatory
 Hence, void for being unconstitutional. statements posted in cyberspace, facilitated by one-click reply
options offered by the networking site as well as by the speed
Articles 353, 354, and 355 of the Penal Code and Section 4(c)(4) of with which such reactions are disseminated down the line to
the Cyber Crime Law other internet users.
 Hence, Section 4(c)(4) penalizing online libel is valid and
 Petitioners dispute the constitutionality of both the penal code constitutional with respect to the original author of the post;
provisions on libel as well as Section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime but void and unconstitutional with respect to others who
Prevention Act on cyberlibel. simply receive the post and react to it.

The RPC provisions on libel read: Section 5 of the Cybercrime Law

Sec. 5. Other Offenses. The following acts shall also constitute an
Art. 353. Definition of libel. A libel is public and malicious imputation offense:
of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, (a) Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime. Any person
omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the who willfully abets or aids in the commission of any of the offenses
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.
to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
(b) Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime. Any person who
Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. Every defamatory imputation is willfully attempts to commit any of the offenses enumerated in this
presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and Act shall be held liable.
justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following
cases:  Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Section 5 that renders
criminally liable any person who willfully abets or aids in the
1. A private communication made by any person to another in the commission or attempts to commit any of the offenses
performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and enumerated as cybercrimes. It suffers from overbreadth,
creating a chilling and deterrent effect on protected expression.
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments  The Solicitor General contends, however, that the current body
or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings of jurisprudence and laws on aiding and abetting sufficiently
which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or protects the freedom of expression of "netizens," the multitude
speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed that avail themselves of the services of the internet. He points
by public officers in the exercise of their functions. out that existing laws and jurisprudence sufficiently delineate
the meaning of "aiding or abetting" a crime as to protect the
Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. A libel committed innocent. The Solicitor General argues that plain, ordinary, and
by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, common usage is at times sufficient to guide law enforcement
phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic agencies in enforcing the law.
exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prision  Libel in the cyberspace can of course stain a persons image with
correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging just one click of the mouse. Scurrilous statements can spread
from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which and travel fast across the globe like bad news. Moreover,
may be brought by the offended party. cyberlibel often goes hand in hand with cyberbullying that
oppresses the victim, his relatives, and friends, evoking from
The libel provision of the cybercrime law, on the other hand, merely mild to disastrous reactions. Still, a governmental purpose,
incorporates to form part of it the provisions of the RPC on libel. which seeks to regulate the use of this cyberspace
Thus Section 4(c)(4) reads: communication technology to protect a persons reputation and
peace of mind, cannot adopt means that will unnecessarily and
Sec. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. The following acts constitute the broadly sweep, invading the area of protected freedoms.
offense of cybercrime punishable under this Act: Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
 If such means are adopted, self-inhibition borne of fear of what
(c) Content-related Offenses: sinister predicaments await internet users will suppress
otherwise robust discussion of public issues. Democracy will be
(4) Libel. The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article threatened and with it, all liberties. Penal laws should provide
355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a reasonably clear guidelines for law enforcement officials and
computer system or any other similar means which may be devised triers of facts to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory
in the future. enforcement. (Adonis) G.R. No. 203378The terms "aiding or
abetting" constitute broad sweep that generates chilling effect
 Petitioners lament that libel provisions of the penal codeand, in on those who express themselves through cyberspace posts,
effect, the libel provisions of the cybercrime law carry with comments, and other messages.
them the requirement of "presumed malice" even when the  Hence, Section 5 of the cybercrime law that punishes "aiding or
latest jurisprudence already replaces it with the higher standard abetting" libel on the cyberspace is a nullity.
of "actual malice" as a basis for conviction.Petitioners argue  As already stated, the cyberspace is an incomparable, pervasive
that inferring "presumed malice" from the accuseds medium of communication. It is inevitable that any government
defamatory statement by virtue of Article 354 of the penal code threat of punishment regarding certain uses of the medium
infringes on his constitutionally guaranteed freedom of creates a chilling effect on the constitutionally-protected
expression. freedom of expression of the great masses that use it. In this
 Libel is not a constitutionally protected speech and that the case, the particularly complex web of interaction on social
government has an obligation to protect private individuals media websites would give law enforcers such latitude that
from defamation. Indeed, cyberlibel is actually not a new crime they could arbitrarily or selectively enforce the law.
since Article 353, in relation to Article 355 of the penal code,  Section 5 with respect to Section 4(c)(4) is unconstitutional.
already punishes it. In effect, Section 4(c)(4) above merely
affirms that online defamation constitutes "similar means" for
committing libel.
 But the Courts acquiescence goes only insofar as the  Its vagueness raises apprehension on the part of internet users
cybercrime law penalizes the author of the libelous statement because of its obvious chilling effect on the freedom of
or article. Cyberlibel brings with it certain intricacies, unheard expression, especially since the crime of aiding or abetting
 ensnares all the actors in the cyberspace front in a fuzzy way.In punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of at least
the absence of legislation tracing the interaction of netizens Two hundred thousand pesos (PhP200,000.00) up to a maximum
and their level of responsibility such as in other countries, amount commensurate to the damage incurred or both.
Section 5, in relation to Section 4(c)(4) on Libel, Section 4(c)(3)
on Unsolicited Commercial Communications, and Section 4(c) Any person found guilty of the punishable act under Section 4(a)(5)
(2) on Child Pornography, cannot stand scrutiny. shall be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of
 But the crime of aiding or abetting the commission of not more than Five hundred thousand pesos (PhP500,000.00) or
cybercrimes under Section 5 should be permitted to apply to both.
Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access, Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal
Interception, Section 4(a)(3) on Data Interference, Section 4(a) If punishable acts in Section 4(a) are committed against critical
(4) on System Interference, Section 4(a)(5) on Misuse of infrastructure, the penalty of reclusion temporal or a fine of at least
Devices, Section 4(a)(6) on Cyber-squatting, Section 4(b)(1) on Five hundred thousand pesos (PhP500,000.00) up to maximum
Computer-related Forgery, Section 4(b)(2) on Computer-related amount commensurate to the damage incurred or both, shall be
Fraud, Section 4(b)(3) on Computer-related Identity Theft, and imposed.
Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex. None of these offenses borders on
the exercise of the freedom of expression. Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in
Section 4(c)(1) of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of
Section 6 of the Cybercrime Law prision mayor or a fine of at least Two hundred thousand pesos
Sec. 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, (PhP200,000.00) but not exceeding One million pesos
as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the (PhP1,000,000.00) or both.
use of information and communications technologies shall be
covered by the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in
penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that Section 4(c)(2) of this Act shall be punished with the penalties as
provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special enumerated in Republic Act No. 9775 or the "Anti-Child Pornography
laws, as the case may be. Act of 2009:" Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one
(1) degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act No. 9775, if
 Section 6 merely makes commission of existing crimes through committed through a computer system.
the internet a qualifying circumstance.
 As the Solicitor General points out, there exists a substantial Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in
distinction between crimes committed through the use of Section 4(c)(3) shall be punished with imprisonment of arresto
information and communications technology and similar crimes mayor or a fine of at least Fifty thousand pesos (PhP50,000.00) but
committed using other means. not exceeding Two hundred fifty thousand pesos (PhP250,000.00) or
 In using the technology in question, the offender often evades both.
identification and is able to reach far more victims or cause
greater harm. Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in
 The distinction, therefore, creates a basis for higher penalties Section 5 shall be punished with imprisonment one (1) degree lower
for cybercrimes. than that of the prescribed penalty for the offense or a fine of at
 Hence, valid and constitutional. least One hundred thousand pesos (PhP100,000.00) but not
exceeding Five hundred thousand pesos (PhP500,000.00) or both.
Section 7 of the Cybercrime Law
Sec. 7. Liability under Other Laws. A prosecution under this Act shall  The matter of fixing penalties for the commission of crimes is as
be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of a rule a legislative prerogative. Here the legislature prescribed a
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws. measure of severe penalties for what it regards as deleterious
cybercrimes. Judges and magistrates can only interpret and
 Online libel is different. There should be no question that if the apply them and have no authority to modify or revise their
published material on print, said to be libelous, is again posted range as determined by the legislative department.
online or vice versa, that identical material cannot be the  The courts should not encroach on this prerogative of the
subject of two separate libels. The two offenses, one a violation lawmaking body.
of Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code and the other a  Hence, valid and constitutional.
violation of Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175 involve essentially the
same elements and are in fact one and the same offense. Section 12 of the Cybercrime Law
 Indeed, the OSG itself claims that online libel under Section 4(c) Sec. 12. Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data. Law enforcement
(4) is not a new crime but is one already punished under Article authorities, with due cause, shall be authorized to collect or record
353. Section 4(c)(4) merely establishes the computer system as by technical or electronic means traffic data in real-time associated
another means of publication. Charging the offender under with specified communications transmitted by means of a computer
both laws would be a blatant violation of the proscription system.
against double jeopardy.
Traffic data refer only to the communications origin, destination,
The Court RESOLVES to LEAVE THE DETERMINATION of the correct route, time, date, size, duration, or type of underlying service, but
application of Section 7 that authorizes prosecution of the offender not content, nor identities.
under both the Revised Penal Code and Republic Act 10175 to actual
cases, WITH THE EXCEPTION of the crimes of: All other data to be collected or seized or disclosed will require a
court warrant.
1. Online libel as to which, charging the offender under both Section
4(c)(4) of Republic Act 10175 and Article 353 of the Revised Penal Service providers are required to cooperate and assist law
Code constitutes a violation of the proscription against double enforcement authorities in the collection or recording of the above-
jeopardy; as well as stated information.

2. Child pornography committed online as to which, charging the  The court warrant required under this section shall only be
offender under both Section 4(c)(2) of Republic Act 10175 and issued or granted upon written application and the examination
Republic Act 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 also under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he
constitutes a violation of the same proscription, and, in respect to may produce and the showing:
these, is void and unconstitutional. (1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the
crimes enumerated hereinabove has been committed, or is
being committed, or is about to be committed;
Section 8 of the Cybercrime Law (2) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence
Sec. 8. Penalties. Any person found guilty of any of the punishable that will be obtained is essential to the conviction of any person
acts enumerated in Sections 4(a) and 4(b) of this Act shall be for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any such
 crimes; and (3) that there are no other means readily available evidence in a case, the mere furnishing to such service provider of
for obtaining such evidence. the transmittal document to the Office of the Prosecutor shall be
deemed a notification to preserve the computer data until the
 Petitioners assail the grant to law enforcement agencies of the termination of the case.
power to collect or record traffic data in real time as tending to
curtail civil liberties or provide opportunities for official abuse. The service provider ordered to preserve computer data shall keep
 They claim that data showing where digital messages come confidential the order and its compliance.
from, what kind they are, and where they are destined need
not be incriminating to their senders or recipients before they  Petitioners in G.R. No. 203391 (Palatino v. Ochoa)claim that
are to be protected. Section 13 constitutes an undue deprivation of the right to
 Petitioners invoke the right of every individual to privacy and to property. They liken the data preservation order that law
be protected from government snooping into the messages or enforcement authorities are to issue as a form of garnishment
information that they send to one another. of personal property in civil forfeiture proceedings. Such order
 Undoubtedly, the State has a compelling interest in enacting prevents internet users from accessing and disposing of traffic
the cybercrime law for there is a need to put order to the data that essentially belong to them.
tremendous activities in cyberspace for public good. To do this,  No doubt, the contents of materials sent or received through
it is within the realm of reason that the government should be the internet belong to their authors or recipients and are to be
able to monitor traffic data to enhance its ability to combat all considered private communications. But it is not clear that a
sorts of cybercrimes. service provider has an obligation to indefinitely keep a copy of
 Informational privacy has two aspects: the right not to have the same as they pass its system for the benefit of users.
private information disclosed, and the right to live freely  By virtue of Section 13, however, the law now requires service
without surveillance and intrusion.In determining whether or providers to keep traffic data and subscriber information
not a matter is entitled to the right to privacy, this Court has relating to communication services for at least six months from
laid down a two-fold test. The first is a subjective test, where the date of the transaction and those relating to content data
one claiming the right must have an actual or legitimate for at least six months from receipt of the order for their
expectation of privacy over a certain matter. The second is an preservation.
objective test, where his or her expectation of privacy must be  At any rate, as the Solicitor General correctly points out, the
one society is prepared to accept as objectively reasonable. 429 data that service providers preserve on orders of law
U.S. 589 (1977) enforcement authorities are not made inaccessible to users by
 Since the validity of the cybercrime law is being challenged, not reason of the issuance of such orders. The process of preserving
in relation to its application to a particular person or group, data will not unduly hamper the normal transmission or use of
petitioners challenge to Section 12 applies to all information the same.
and communications technology (ICT) users, meaning the large  Hence, valid and constitutional
segment of the population who use all sorts of electronic
devices to communicate with one another. Consequently, the Section 14 of the Cybercrime Law
expectation of privacy is to be measured from the general Sec. 14. Disclosure of Computer Data. Law enforcement authorities,
publics point of view. Without reasonable expectation of upon securing a court warrant, shall issue an order requiring any
privacy, the right to it would have no basis in fact. person or service provider to disclose or submit subscribers
 In Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977)the United States information, traffic data or relevant data in his/its possession or
Supreme Court classified privacy into two categories: decisional control within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt of the order in
privacy and informational privacy. Decisional privacy involves relation to a valid complaint officially docketed and assigned for
the right to independence in making certain important investigation and the disclosure is necessary and relevant for the
decisions, while informational privacy refers to the interest in purpose of investigation.
avoiding disclosure of personal matters. It is the latter rightthe
right to informational privacythat those who oppose  The process envisioned in Section 14 is being likened to the
government collection or recording of traffic data in real-time issuance of a subpoena.
seek to protect.  Besides, what Section 14 envisions is merely the enforcement
of a duly issued court warrant, a function usually lodged in the
Section 12 does not permit law enforcement authorities to look into hands of law enforcers to enable them to carry out their
the contents of the messages and uncover the identities of the executive functions. The prescribed procedure for disclosure
sender and the recipient. would not constitute an unlawful search or seizure nor would it
violate the privacy of communications and correspondence.
 Section 12, of course, limits the collection of traffic data to Disclosure can be made only after judicial intervention.
those "associated with specified communications." But this  Hence, valid and constitutional.
supposed limitation is no limitation at all since, evidently, it is
the law enforcement agencies that would specify the target Section 15 of the Cybercrime Law
communications. Sec. 15. Search, Seizure and Examination of Computer Data. Where a
 The power is virtually limitless, enabling law enforcement search and seizure warrant is properly issued, the law enforcement
authorities to engage in "fishing expedition," choosing authorities shall likewise have the following powers and duties.
whatever specified communication they want. This evidently
threatens the right of individuals to privacy. Within the time period specified in the warrant, to conduct
 The Court must ensure that laws seeking to take advantage of interception, as defined in this Act, and:
these technologies be written with specificity and definiteness (a) To secure a computer system or a computer data storage
as to ensure respect for the rights that the Constitution medium;
guarantees. (b) To make and retain a copy of those computer data secured;
 Hence, void for being unconstitutional (c) To maintain the integrity of the relevant stored computer data;
(d) To conduct forensic analysis or examination of the computer
Section 13 of the Cybercrime Law data storage medium; and
Sec. 13. Preservation of Computer Data. The integrity of traffic data (e) To render inaccessible or remove those computer data in the
and subscriber information relating to communication services accessed computer or computer and communications network.
provided by a service provider shall be preserved for a minimum
period of six (6) months from the date of the transaction. Content
data shall be similarly preserved for six (6) months from the date of
receipt of the order from law enforcement authorities requiring its
preservation.
Law enforcement authorities may order a one-time extension for  Pursuant thereof, the law enforcement authorities may order
another six (6) months: Provided, That once computer data any person who has knowledge about the functioning of the
preserved, transmitted or stored by a service provider is used as computer system and the measures to protect and preserve the
 computer data therein to provide, as is reasonable, the  But since the non-compliance would be punished as a violation
necessary information, to enable the undertaking of the search, of (P.D.) 1829, PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION
seizure and examination. AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS. Section 20
 Law enforcement authorities may request for an extension of necessarily incorporates elements of the offense which are
time to complete the examination of the computer data storage defined therein.
medium and to make a return thereon but in no case for a  Thus, the act of non-compliance, for it to be punishable, must
period longer than thirty (30) days from date of approval by the still be done "knowingly or willfully." There must still be a
court. judicial determination of guilt, during which, as the Solicitor
 Petitioners challenge Section 15 on the assumption that it will General assumes, defense and justifications for non-compliance
supplant established search and seizure procedures. may be raised. Thus, Section 20 is valid insofar as it applies to
 The exercise of these duties do not pose any threat on the the provisions of Chapter IV which are not struck down by the
rights of the person from whom they were taken. Section 15 Court.
does not appear to supersede existing search and seizure rules  Hence, valid and constitutional.
but merely supplements them.
 Hence, valid and constitutional. Sections 24 and 26(a) of the Cybercrime Law

Section 17 of the Cybercrime Law Sec. 24. Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center. There is
Sec. 17. Destruction of Computer Data. Upon expiration of the hereby created, within thirty (30) days from the effectivity of this
periods as provided in Sections 13 and 15, service providers and law Act, an inter-agency body to be known as the Cybercrime
enforcement authorities, as the case may be, shall immediately and Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC), under the
completely destroy the computer data subject of a preservation and administrative supervision of the Office of the President, for policy
examination. coordination among concerned agencies and for the formulation and
enforcement of the national cybersecurity plan.
 Petitioners claim that such destruction of computer data
subject of previous preservation or examination violates the Sec. 26. Powers and Functions. The CICC shall have the following
users right against deprivation of property without due process powers and functions:
of law.
 But, as already stated, it is unclear that the user has a (a) To formulate a national cybersecurity plan and extend immediate
demandable right to require the service provider to have that assistance of real time commission of cybercrime offenses through a
copy of the data saved indefinitely for him in its storage system. computer emergency response team (CERT); x x x.
 If he wanted them preserved, he should have saved them in his
computer when he generated the data or received it. He could  Petitioners mainly contend that Congress invalidly delegated its
also request the service provider for a copy before it is deleted. power when it gave the Cybercrime Investigation and
 Hence, valid and constitutional. Coordinating Center (CICC) the power to formulate a national
cybersecurity plan without any sufficient standards or
Section 19 of the Cybercrime Law parameters for it to follow.
Sec. 19. Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data. When a  In order to determine whether there is undue delegation of
computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the legislative power, the Court has adopted two tests: the
provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block completeness test and the sufficient standard test.
access to such computer data. 1) Under the first test, the law must be complete in all its
terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such
 Petitioners contest Section 19 in that it stifles freedom of that when it reaches the delegate, the only thing he will
expression and violates the right against unreasonable searches have to do is to enforce it.
and seizures. 2) The second test mandates adequate guidelines or
 The Solicitor General concedes that this provision may be limitations in the law to determine the boundaries of the
unconstitutional. But since laws enjoy a presumption of delegates authority and prevent the delegation from
constitutionality, the Court must satisfy itself that Section 19 running riot. Gerochi v. Department of Energy, 554 Phil.
indeed violates the freedom and right mentioned. 563 (2007).
 Not only does Section 19 preclude any judicial intervention, but
it also disregards jurisprudential guidelines established to  Here, the cybercrime law is complete in itself when it directed
determine the validity of restrictions on speech. the CICC to formulate and implement a national cybersecurity
 Restraints on free speech are generally evaluated on one of or a plan. Also, contrary to the position of the petitioners, the law
combination of three tests: the dangerous tendency doctrine, gave sufficient standards for the CICC to follow when it
the balancing of interest test, and the clear and present danger provided a definition of cybersecurity.
rule. Section 19, however, merely requires that the data to be  Cybersecurity refers to the collection of tools, policies, risk
blocked be found prima facie in violation of any provision of the management approaches, actions, training, best practices,
cybercrime law. assurance and technologies that can be used to protect cyber
 Taking Section 6 into consideration, this can actually be made environment and organization and users assets.
to apply in relation to any penal provision. It does not take into  This definition serves as the parameters within which CICC
consideration any of the three tests mentioned above. should work in formulating the cybersecurity plan.
 The Court is therefore compelled to strike down Section 19 for  Further, the formulation of the cybersecurity plan is consistent
being violative of the constitutional guarantees to freedom of with the policy of the law to "prevent and combat such [cyber]
expression and against unreasonable searches and seizures. offenses by facilitating their detection, investigation, and
prosecution at both the domestic and international levels, and
Section 20 of the Cybercrime Law by providing arrangements for fast and reliable international
Sec. 20. Noncompliance. Failure to comply with the provisions of cooperation." This policy is clearly adopted in the interest of
Chapter IV hereof specifically the orders from law enforcement law and order, which has been considered as sufficient
authorities shall be punished as a violation of Presidential Decree standard.
No. 1829 with imprisonment of prision correctional in its maximum  Hence, Sections 24 and 26(a) are likewise valid and
period or a fine of One hundred thousand pesos (Php100,000.00) or constitutional.
both, for each and every noncompliance with an order issued by law
enforcement authorities.

 Petitioners challenge Section 20, alleging that it is a bill of

attainder. The argument is that the mere failure to comply 8. Weight of evidence in criminal, civil and administrative cases
constitutes a legislative finding of guilt, without regard to
situations where non-compliance would be reasonable or valid. IN CIVIL CASES (Sec 1, Rule 133, ROC)
 The party having the burden of proof must establish his case by
a preponderance of evidence. b. Word association test – A list of stimulus and non-stimulus
 In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of words are read to the subject who is instructed to answer
evidence on the issues, the following factors must be as quickly as possible. The time interval between the
considered which party's evidence preponderate: words uttered by the examiner and the answer of the
a. All the facts and circumstances of the case. subject is recorded. The test is not concerned with the
b. The witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, answer, be it a yes or no. The important factor is the time
their means and opportunities of knowing the facts to of response in relation to the stimulus or non-stimulus
which they are testifying. words.
c. The nature of the facts to which the witnesses testify.
d. The probability and improbability of the witnesses' c. Psychological stress evaluator (PSE) – detects, measures,
testimony. and graphically displays the voice modulations that we
e. The interest or want of interest of the witnesses. cannot hear. When a person speaks, there are audible
f. Credibility of the witness so far as the same may voice frequencies, and superimposed on these are the
legitimately appear upon the trial. inaudible frequency modulations which are products of
g. The number of witnesses presented, although minute oscillation of the muscles of the voice mechanism.
preponderance is not necessarily with the greatest Such oscillations of the muscles or microtremor occur at
number. the rate of 8 to 14 cycles per second and controlled by the
central nervous system.
IN CRIMINAL CASE (Sec 2, Rule 133, ROC)
 The defendant is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is 2. Use of drugs that try to ―inhibit the inhibitor
shown beyond reasonable doubt. a. Truth serum – In the test, hyoscine hydrobromide is given
 Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree hypodermically in repeated doses until a state of delirium
of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute is induced. When the proper point is reached, the
certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of questioning begins and the subject feels a compulsion to
proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. answer the questions truthfully.
 It is presumed that a person is innocent of a crime until the
contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The doubt, the b. Narcoanalysis or narcosynthesis – practically the same as
benefit of which an accused is entitled in a criminal case, is a that of administration of truth serum. The only difference
reasonable doubt, and not a whimsical or fanciful doubt, based is the drug used. Psychiatric sodium amytal or sodium
on imagined and wholly improbable possibilities and penthotal is administered to the subject.
unsupported by evidence.
c. Intoxication – the apparent stimulation effect of alcohol is
IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE(Sec 5, Rule 133, ROC) really the result of the control mechanism of the brain, so
 A fact may be deemed established if it is supported by alcohol, like truth serum, and narcoanalytic drugs ―inhibit
substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence the inhibitor‖. (In vino veritas – in wine there is truth)
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion. 3. Hypnotism – the alteration of consciousness and
concentration in which the subject manifests a heightened
9. Exacting truth / Detection deception of suggestibility while awareness is maintained.

Methods of deception detection used by law enforcement 4. By observation

agencies:
1. Devices which record the psycho-physiological response Physiological and psychological signs and symptoms of guilt:
a. Polygraph or lie detector machine – records physiological a. Sweating – if accompanied with a flushed face indicate
changes that occur in association with lying in a polygraph. anger, embarrassment or extreme nervousness. If with
a pallid face, may indicate shock or fear. Sweating
Phases of Examination hands indicate tension.
a. Pre-test interview
b. Actual interrogation and recording through the b. Color change – flushed face may indicate anger,
instrument embarrassment or shame. Pale face is sign of guilt.

Standard test questions: c. Dryness of the mouth – nervous tension causes

1. Irrelevant questions – no bearing to the case under dryness of the mouth which causes continuous
investigation (ex: age, citizenship, occupation, etc) swallowing and licking of the lips.

2. Relevant questions – pertaining to the issue under d. Excessive activity of the Adam’s apple – on account of
investigation (ex: Did you shoot to death Mr. X?) dryness of the throat, subject will swallow saliva which
causes frequent upward and downward movement of
3. Control questions – unrelated to the matter under investigation the Adam’s apple.
but are of similar nature although less serious as compared to
those relevant questions (ex: Have you ever used a gun?) e. Fidgeting – constantly moving about in the chair,
pulling his ears, rubbing his face, picking and tweaking
c. Post-test interrogation the nose, etc. Indicative of nervous tension.

Supplementary tests: f. Peculiar feeling inside – there is a sensation of

1) Peak-of-tension test – may be given if subject is not yet lightness of the head and the subject is confused.
informed of the details of the offense for which he is being Result of troubled conscience.
interrogated by the investigator.
g. Swearing to the truthfulness of his assertion – I swear
2) Guilt complex test – applied when the response to to God I am telling the truth
relevant and control questions are similar in degree and
consistency in a way that the examiner cannot determine
whether the subject is telling the truth or not.
3) Silent answer test – conducted in the same manner as h. Spotless past record – subject may assert that it is not
when relevant, irrelevant and control questions are asked, possible for him to do ―anything like that‖ inasmuch
but the subject is instructed to answer the questions as he is a religious man and that he has a spotless
silently, to himself, without making any verbal response. record.
 “The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the
i. Inability to look at the investigator “straight in the people and instill health consciousness among them.”
eye” – because of fear that his guilt may be seen in his
eyes. b. SEC 14, ART XII, 1987 Constitution
“The sustained development of a reservoir of national talents
5. Scientific interrogation – the questioning of a person consisting of Filipino scientists, entrepreneurs, professionals,
suspected of having committed an offense or of persons managers, high-level technical manpower and skilled workers
who are reluctant to make a full disclosure of information in and craftsmen in all fields shall be promoted by the State.
his possession which is pertinent to the investigation.
 Suspect – person whose guilt is considered on The State shall encourage appropriate technology and regulate
reasonable ground its transfer for the national benefit.
 Witness – person other than
The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited
6. Confession – an expressed acknowledgment by the accused to Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.”
in a criminal case of the truth of his guilt as to the crime
charged, or of some essentials thereof. c. SEC 11, ART XIII, 1987 Constitution
“The State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive
10. Types of criminal offenders approach to health development which shall endeavor to make
a. Based on behavioral attitude: essential goods, health and other social services available to all
i. Active aggressive offenders – commit crimes in an the people at affordable cost.
impulsive manner
ii. Passive inadequate offenders – commit crimes There shall be priority for the needs of the under-privileged,
because of inducement, promise or reward. sick, elderly, disabled, women, and children.

b. Based on the state of mind: The State shall endeavor to provide free medical care to
i. Rational offenders – commit crime with motive or paupers.”
intention
ii. Irrational offenders – commit crime without knowing d. Patients Bill of Rights
the nature and quality of his act.
1. Right to Life
c. Based on proficiency 2. Right to Quality Health Care and Humane Treatment
i. Ordinary offenders – engaged in crimes which require 3. Right to Informed Consent to Diagnostic and Treatment
limited skill Procedures
ii. Professional offenders – commit crimes which 4. Right to Religious Belief
require special skills rather than violence. 5. Right to Privacy
6. Right of Disclosure of Information
d. Psychological classification 7. Right to Confidential Information
i. Emotional offenders – commit crimes in the heat of 8. The Right to Choose His Physicians
passion, anger, or revenge. 9. Right to Treatment
ii. Non-emotional offenders – commit crimes for 10. Right to Refuse Necessary Treatment
financial gain and are usually recidivist or repeaters. 11. Other Rights of Patients When Confined In The Hospital

11. Techniques of interrogation:

a. Emotional appeal – interrogator must create a mood that
is conducive to confession
b. Mutt and Jeff technique – there must be at least 2
investigators with opposite character; one (Mutt) who is
arrogant and relentless, and the other (Jeff) who is
friendly, sympathetic and kind.
c. Bluff on split-pair technique – applicable where there are
two or more persons who allegedly participated in the
commission of a crime. While one of them is interrogated,
the interrogator may claim that the subject was implicated
by the author and that there is no use for him to deny
participation.
d. Stern approach – questions must be answered clearly, and
the interrogator utilizes harsh language.
e. The subject is given the opportunity to make a lengthy,
time-consuming narration.

PART II: LAWS AFFECTING FORENSIC

e. RA 2382 Philippine Medical Act
a. SEC 15, ART II, 1987 Constitution
People vs. Buenviaje, 47 Phil. 536 (1925).
 People vs. Vda. deGolez 108 Phil. at 858 • PEOPLE vs. VALLEJO G.R. No. 144656
Philippine Medical Association vs. Board of Medical Examiners • People vsYatarG.R. No. 150224
and Jose Torres. G.R. No. L- 25135
Board of Medicine vs. Ota,G.R. No. 166097, July 14, 2008
State ex rel. Collet v. Scopel, Mo., 316 S.W.2d 515. (PMA) q. SB 972 Good Samaritan Bill
- Carter v. Reese, Ohio Supreme Court Slip Opinion
State v. Evertz, Mo., 190 S.W. 287 r. RA 11166 Philippine AIDS Law
s. PMA- COE Resolution No. 2011-001
Hitchcock v. Collenberg, D.C.Md., 140 F. Supp. 894, t. R.A. 8981 PRC Modernization Act 2000
affirmed 353 U.S. 919, 77 S. Ct. 679, 1 L.Ed.2d 718; u. House Bill 4955

Dantzler v. Callison, 230 S.C. 75, 94 S.E.2d 177.

Dr. Antonio P. Cabugao vs. People of the Philippines G.R.

No. 163879 July 30, 2014.

Dr. Fernando Solidum, vs. People of the Philippines, GR

192123, March 10, 2014.

Spouses Fredelito and Felecisima Flores vs. Spouses

Dominador Pineda and Virginia Saclolo and United Doctors Medical
Center Inc., respondents, GR 158996, November 14, 2008

f. RA 11223 Universal Health Care Act

g. RA 6675 Generics Act
- Santiago del Rosario vsBengzon, G.R. No. 88265

h. RA 9165 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act

- PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
PATRICIA CABRELLOS Y DELA CRUZ, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No.
229826, July 30, 2018(DDA)
- PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAMIL
GALICIA Y CHAVEZ, Accused-Appellants. G.R. No. 218402, February
14, 2018
- PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs.PABLO
ARPOSEPLE y SANCHEZ and JHUNREL SULOGAOL y DATU, Accused,
G.R. No. 205787
- PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs.CRISPIAN MERCED LUMAYA a.k.a. "IPYANG", andDEREK JOSEPH
LUMAYA, G.R. No. 231983

i. RA 9262 VAWC
- Melgar vs. People G.R. No. 223477 (VAWC)
- STEVEN R. PAVLOW, Petitioner, v. CHERRY L.
MENDENILLA, Respondent. G.R. No. 181489, April 19, 2017 (VAWC)
- AAA, Petitioner vs.BBB, Respondent, G.R. No. 212448
- Garcia vsDrilon GR 179267

j. RA 8344 Non Refusal During Emergency Cases

k. RA 10932 – No Deposit During Emergency
- PHAP vs. MedialdeaG.R. No. 234448,
l. RA 10173 Data Privacy Act
m. RA 11332 Mandatory reporting of Communicable
Diseases
n. RA 11055 National ID System
o. A.M. No. 06-11-5-SCRULE ON DNA EVIDENCE
p. SB 1868 Creation of Forensic Institute

• PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs.EDGAR

ALLAN CORPUZ Y FLORES, Accused-Appellant, G.R. No. 208013
(DNA)
• PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERRY
C. PALOTES, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 209786, July 06, 2015 G.R.
No. 209786, July 06, 2015
• MARIA T. CALMA, Petitioner, v. MARILU C. TURLA,
Respondent. G.R. No. 221684, July 30, 2018
• PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
VILLARIN CLEMENO, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 215202, March
14, 2018
• Herrera v. Alba, G.R. No. 148220, June 15, 2005
• Estate of Rogelio G. Ong v. Diaz, G.R. No. 171713,
December 17, 2007
• Lejano v. People, G.R. No. 176389, December 14, 2010
• People v Umanito
• ARNEL L. AGUSTIN, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF
APPEALS AND MINOR MARTIN JOSE PROLLAMANTE, REPRESENTED
BY HIS MOTHER/GUARDIAN FE ANGELA PROLLAMANTE,
respondents. G.R. No. 162571