APR 27 LECTURE

Question 1

section 3b 210

can you prosecurte

RA 3019 & violation 210 on bribery?

Answer 1

WHAT IS THE LEGAL BASIS

fiscal:

Yes, outlined in section 3
“ In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:”

EVEN IF THEY HAVE THE SAME ELEMENTS BECAUSE SECTION THREE SAYS IN ADDITION TO

3019 is one of those acts that can be committed in relation to ill-gotten welath in PLUNDER.

Question 2

if the scheme by which the perpertrator adapted in order to acquire at least 50 million,

can you proseucte him for plundder nad 3019

Answer 2

YES, priecilse ybecause of the fact that section 3 says “IN ADDITION TO”

even in Anti-Mmoney laundering and 3019 because of the “In addition”

Question 3

Obstruction of justice by means of coercion

y9ou prevented a witness from testifying or from

cna you prosecute one for obstrutction of justice & GRAVE COERCION? =

Answer 3

Enrile v. Amin the obstruction of justice in frutherance of rebellion
[answer from classmate ]

ficsal: is obstruction of justice absorbed?

Yes, obstruction of justice

YES YO UCAN PROSECUTE BOTH

look at the INTENT

grave coercion – i is an attack on the libERTY AND SECRUITY OF THE PERSON

obstruction of justice – the gov’t who is interest in anyone who will prevent someone from testigyin or reporting an incidoent
- the gov’t is the ineterested party

graver cerocino - your private iberyt was
- this is on persona liberty

Question 4

RA 10175 does not create new offense other than mentioned

so those penalized in RPC and SPL,

cybercrime is merely a qualifying circumstance for the imposition of one degree higher.

IOW, as to prescription of crimds 10175, it did not amend the RPC or SPL is as is.

Question 5

for those crimes not qualified by 10175,

“prosecution of cybercrimes shall be without prejudice

Question 6

Disini vs Secretary of Justice G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014

Answer 6

SC ruled that there is no violation of a fundamental freedom

Question 7

data interference,

4(a)3, SC says it is constiuttinoal. it simply punishes essentialy form of vandalism

is there

Question 8

10175 merely expanded the anti-child pornography act

when it expanded, it payed 10175 merely as a qualifying circumstance.

it did not create a new crime related to child pornography

Question 9

in libel of the RPC, ra 10175 makes libel as a qualifying circumstance

Question 10

u received a notif and you clicked and it was cyberchild pornography.

according to Disini, if aiding and abetting is penalized, then an innocent leaking of notification would make you liable.

according to Disini, the aiding and abetteing should be rendered UNCONSTI.

SC SAID

Answer 10

SC SAID it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

ex. someone post a malicious post in fb (poeple like react, comment) that cannot be regarded as aiding and baetting

for as long as you do not google, then you are not liable for aiding or abetting.

it is UNConstitutional with

Question 11

ex. when you like an open or comment defamatory statement, is that aiding or abeting?

Answer 11

nO, in the case of DIsini, the SC ruled that those acts cannot be reagrded as aiding or abetting

Question 12

if you commit estafa and you use ICT (iG or FB)

what is the?

Answer 12

it is still estafa but the use of ICT will qualify estafa

Question 13

cybercrime for the rpc?

Answer 13

if u use ICT, then make use 10175 as aqualifying circumstnace

Question 14

TERRORISM

Answer 14

11479

Question 15

what are overt acts of terrorism?

Answer 15

sec 4 (a-e)

(a) Engages in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or endangers a person’s life;

(b) Engages in acts intended to cause extensive damage or destruction to a government or public facility, public place or private property;

(c) Engages in acts intended to cause extensive interference with, damage or destruction to critical infrastructure;

(d) Develops, manufactures, possesses, acquires, transports, supplies or uses weapons, explosives or of biological, nuclear, radiological or chemical weapons; and

(e) Release of dangerous substances, or causing fire, floods or explosions.

Question 16

why are subsection a - e terroristic when they can be punished

a - himicide, physical
b - maliciouis mischief
c- malicious mischief
d - firearms and explosive act
e - if it involves hi jacking, it is

Answer 16

it must be coupled with the second component

2nd compoenent : PURPOSE OF THE ACT

for ex. A, if it is for the purpose of intimidating the general public, then that makes it a terroristic c

Question 17

however in “NOT INTENDED CALUSE” in section 4 last sentence of the long paragraph

” which are not intended to cause death or serious physical harm to a person, to endanger a person’s life, or to create a serious risk to public safety.”

Answer 17

the SC that that proviso (not intended to cause death xxx)

that is UNconstitutional due to void for vaguesness and strict scrutinity test

it is enough for congress that terrorism, it should include the first (a-e) and 2nd compenent

the not intended caluse is UNNECESSARY according to the SC because there are not sfufficient pararmeters that can render judicial construction.

you are practically transferring the burden of proof to the accused. the SC ruled that the not intended clause is UNCONSTITUTINOAL

Question 18

is threat to commit terrorism possibel?

Answer 18

sec 5, YES to commit any of the acts theeatend in sec 4

preparatory acts is punihsable (sec 6)
- participati

Question 19

mere conspiracy of terrorism that is short of committing terrorism?

proposal? [B]

Answer 19

both yes

just like rebellion and sedition, Inciting makes one liable (sec 9)

Question 20

how to be liable under “Section 10. Recruitment to and Membership in a Terrorist Organization”

how would you know if a person or org is terroist group or terrorist?

Answer 20

sec 26,

this is MALA IN SE so you must have knowledge in spite that they are applied of sec 2

basically a person who VOUNTARY and KNOWINGLY shall be held liable in sec 26

Question 21

ex. A join because he was under duress and he knows the group is a terorist group declared ,

will he liable?

Answer 21

no, knowing and voluntarieness

Question 22

• not only material support
• but also knowingly providing notwithstanding the fact that person or group is described as a terrorist individual

Question 23

when liable as an accessory in ATA?

same definition of art. 20 of RPC

in the ATA

Question 24

sec 16 cover that

Question 25

sec 29 Detention Without Judicial Warrant of Arrest.

Question 26

in the case of Calleja,

the court rendered UNconsitional three things

Answer 26

1. not intended clause
2. mode of designation (sec 25) (p.2)
3. any other reference of provision in the IRR relating to the not intended clause and par. 2 of sec 25

Question 27

how is designation done?

section 25

1
2. ex
3 upon own finding of probable cause

how is PROSCRIPTION different from DESIGNATION?

Answer 27

PROSCRIPTION
- jduical process
- go to the CA, and they will determine if there is probable cause in order to be prscribed a person or gorup as terrostist

DESIGNATION
- administartive process
- will determine ang ANTI TERRORISM COUNCIL who determins what group or person is a terrorist

Question 28

RELEVANCE OF DESIGNATION or PROSCRIPTN

Answer 28

2. your records in banking will be examined. if there is probable cause, then the AMLC (anti-maundering ) can freeze whatever assets you have
   and liable for sec 10 of ATA
   3.

Question 29

why is paragraph 2 unconstitional

ex. US requrst quiboly to be a terrorist and is done administratively,

the means employed is not the least restrictive in order to achieve the state compelling interest.

Question 30

in proscription, or done judicially, that is constitutional and is a valid exercise of Police power and passes strict scrutiny test

Question 31

detention without warant of arest

sec 29 - detained 14 days and extended without informaion being filed against you

Q: is this constitutional?

Answer 31

sec 29, if construed properlty, does not provide for an executive warrant of arresete.

the court asid a person may be arrested for acts defined under sec 4 - 12 in ATA but ONLY under the circustmances contemplated in rule 9 . 2 (in flagrante delicto)

Question 32

so if you aiding the terrorist group for financial aid,

law enforcers need not get warrant. therefore they can validly arrest you

only that you can be detinaed 14-21 days

under art 125 , theh maximum is athree day detention

Question 33

under art 125 , theh maximum is athree day detention

does that amount to an executive warrant?

Answer 33

No,

the retention can only made under exceptional cases provided that the law enforceer has PROBABLE CAUSE under sec 4 - 12

Question 34

A is a detainee under sec 29 of ATA and you claim that your rights are vioalted and wrongly arrested.

what ist he remedy?

Answer 34

**petition of the issuance of the writ of a habeas corpus **