Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014

Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014

En Banc

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/56650

## Resolution

1. VOID for being UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

1. Section 4(c)(3) of Republic Act 10175 that penalizes posting of unsolicited commercial communications;
2. Section 12 that authorizes the collection or recording of traffic data in real-time; and
3. Section 19 of the same Act that authorizes the Department of Justice to restrict or block access to suspected Computer Data.
2. VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL:
4. Section 4(a)(1) that penalizes accessing a computer system without right;
5. Section 4(a)(3) that penalizes data interference, including transmission of viruses;
6. Section

 4(a)(6) that penalizes cyber-squatting or acquiring domain name over
the internet in bad faith to the prejudice of others;

1. Section 4(b)(3) that penalizes identity theft or the use or misuse of identifying information belonging to another;
2. Section

 4(c)(1) that penalizes cybersex or the lascivious exhibition of sexual
organs or sexual activity for favor or consideration;

1. Section 4(c)(2) that penalizes the production of child pornography;
2. Section

 6 that imposes penalties one degree higher when crimes defined under
the Revised Penal Code are committed with the use of information and
communications technologies;

1. Section 8 that prescribes the penalties for cybercrimes;
2. Section

 13 that permits law enforcement authorities to require service
providers to preserve traffic data and subscriber information as well as
 specified content data for six months;

1. Section 14 that authorizes the disclosure of computer data under a court-issued warrant;
2. Section 15 that authorizes the search, seizure, and examination of computer data under a court-issued warrant;
3. Section

 17 that authorizes the destruction of previously preserved computer
data after the expiration of the prescribed holding periods;

1. Section 20 that penalizes obstruction of justice in relation to cybercrime investigations;
2. Section 24 that establishes a Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC);
3. Section 26(a) that defines the CICC’s Powers and Functions; and
4. Articles 353, 354, 361, and 362 of the Revised Penal Code that penalizes libel.
Further, the Court **DECLARES**:

1. Section 4(c)(4) that penalizes online libel as **VALID** and **CONSTITUTIONAL** with respect to the original author of the post; but **VOID** and **UNCONSTITUTIONAL** with respect to others who simply receive the post and react to it; and

2. Section 5 that penalizes aiding or abetting and attempt in the commission of cybercrimes as **VALID** and **CONSTITUTIONAL**
 only in relation to Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access, Section 4(a)(2)
on Illegal Interception, Section 4(a)(3) on Data Interference, Section
4(a)(4) on System Interference, Section 4(a)(5) on Misuse of Devices,
Section 4(a)(6) on Cyber-squatting, Section 4(b)(1) on Computer-related
Forgery, Section 4(b)(2) on Computer-related Fraud, Section 4(b)(3) on
Computer-related Identity Theft, and Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex; but **VOID** and **UNCONSTITUTIONAL**
 with respect to Sections 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography, 4(c)(3) on
Unsolicited Commercial Communications, and 4(c)(4) on online Libel.

Lastly, the Court **RESOLVES** to **LEAVE THE DETERMINATION**
 of the correct application of Section 7 that authorizes prosecution of
the offender under both the Revised Penal Code and Republic Act 10175 to
 actual cases, **WITH THE EXCEPTION** of the crimes of:

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 Code
constitutes a violation of the proscription against double jeopardy; as
well as

2. Child pornography committed online as to which,
charging the offender under both Section 4(c)(2) of Republic Act 10175
and Republic Act 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 also
constitutes a violation of the same proscription,

and, in respect to these, is **VOID** and **UNCONSTITUTIONAL**.