Monthly Archives: July 2013

Electronic Evidence for Criminal Cases

Ang vs. Court of Appeals, GR 182835, 20 April 2010; Second Division, Abad [J], provided:

Besides, the rules he cites do not apply to the present criminal action. The Rules on Electronic Evidence applies only to civil actions, quasi-judicial proceedings, and administrative proceedings. [A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, Rule 1, Section 2]

On the other hand, eight years prior to the Ang case, an En Banc Resolution of the Court of 24 September 2002 (AM 01-7-01-SC “RE Expansion of the Coverage of the Rules on Electronic Evidence”), was signed by then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. (retired 20 December 2005); Associate Justices Josue Bellosillo (retired 13 November 2003), Reynato S. Puno (subsequently Chief Justice [8 December 2006], retired 17 May 2010), Jose C. Vitug (retired 15 July 2004), Artemio V. Panganiban (subsequently Chief Justice [20 December 2005], retired 7 December 2006), Leonardo A. Quisumbing (retired 6 November 2009), Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (retired 5 October 2009), Antonio T. Carpio, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez (resigned due to health reasons, 30 April 2009), Renato C. Corona (subsequently Chief Justice [17 May 2010], impeached 29 May 2012), Conchita C. Morales (retired 19 June 2011), and Romeo J. Callejo Sr. (retired 28 April 2007) Associate Justices Vicente V. Mendoza (retired 5 April 2003) and Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez (retired 28 February 2008) took no part therein.

The En Banc Resolution of 24 September 2002 appears to have been published in Manila Bulletin, at page 4, on 27 September 2002.


This was previously discussed in a previous post entitled “Phantom Resolution.” Proof of publication of the 2002 resolution was not yet available at the time the previous post was published, and hence, the following portion in the previous article:

C. One possible option

Thus, it would appear that the only way that the matter may be resolved, whether the Resolution has been made applicable in 2002, would lie upon the availability of proof of publication in a newspaper of general circulation or the Official Gazette. Ultimately, is there a copy of a 2002 issue of the Philippine Star (since its applicability was reported therein), containing the Resolution itself that would resolve the matter altogether?

Proof of publication was submitted by one of my students (from current Batch 16) who is enrolled in the “Technology and the Law” subject (Saturday). It appears that a copy of published Resolution is available at the Manila Bulletin Library at Muralla corner Recolletos Streets, Intramuros, Manila, Philippines.

Advertisements

Students’ Take: Contacts viz RA 10173, Competing advertising in sponsored events, and Direction of Copyright Reform

For first semester of SY 2013-2014, my students in Technology and the Law are given the task of discussing (1) Contacts viz RA 10173 (6 July 2013); (2) Competing advertising in sponsored events (30 August 2013); (3) Direction of Copyright Reform (18 October 2013). These are their opinions on the subject matters:

No verifiable post(s): Cortes (1), Diaz (1), Nones (1); Non-compliant post as to provider: Delos Reyes (1); Withdrawn: Imperio

Batch 15’s contents are mirrored in AUSL Tech & Law blog.

Who do you think is persuasive? on point?

Note: External articles are properties of their respective authors. No endorsement on accuracy or correctness of said articles is being made here. No guarantee that external links will remain active.

Students’ Take: RA 10173 viz a National ID system, and Malacanang’s FAQ on the effects of RA 10372

For summer of SY 2012-2013, my students in Technology and the Law are given the task of discussing (1) RA 10173 viz a National ID system, and (2) Malacanang’s FAQ on the effects of RA 10372. These are their opinions on the subject matters:

(1) RA 10173 viz a National ID system (7 May 2013); (2) Malacanang’s FAQ on the effects of RA 10372 (21 May 2013);

Submitted, but no verifiable post(s): Gabronino (1,2); Withdrawn: Agnir, Alicayos

Batch 15’s contents will be mirrored in AUSL Tech & Law blog.

Who do you think is persuasive? on point?

Note: External articles are properties of their respective authors. No endorsement on accuracy or correctness of said articles is being made here. No guarantee that external links will remain active.