Tag Archives: tech&law

Update: Electronic Evidence for Criminal Cases (People v. Enojas)

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

Four. Rustan claims that the obscene picture sent to Irish through a text message constitutes an electronic document. Thus, it should be authenticated by means of an electronic signature, as provided under Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. 01-7-01-SC).

But, firstly, Rustan is raising this objection to the admissibility of the obscene picture, Exhibit A, for the first time before this Court. The objection is too late since he should have objected to the admission of the picture on such ground at the time it was offered in evidence. He should be deemed to have already waived such ground for objection. [People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 180501, December 24, 2008, 575 SCRA 616, 625-626]

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] (Emphasis mine)

However, People v. Enojas, GR 204894, 10 March 2014, Third Division, Abad [J], provided:

As to the admissibility of the text messages, the RTC admitted them in conformity with the Court’s earlier Resolution applying the Rules on Electronic Evidence to criminal actions. [A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, Re: Expansion of the Coverage of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, September 24, 2002.] Text messages are to be proved by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge of them. [Id., Rule 11, Section 2] Here, PO3 Cambi, posing as the accused Enojas, exchanged text messages with the other accused in order to identify and entrap them. As the recipient of those messages sent from and to the mobile phone in his possession, PO3 Cambi had personal knowledge of such messages and was competent to testify on them. (Emphasis mine)

The latter case does not confront directly the obiter in Ang v. Court of Appeals, but the recognition of the 2002 resolution expanding the coverage of the rules on electronic evidence in People v. Enojas is clear.

The Rules on Electronic Evidence apply to criminal cases.

Students’ Take: MCPIF (SB 53), Data Privacy Act (RA 10173)

For summer of SY 2013-2014, my students in Technology and the Law are given the task of discussing (1) for Monday-Wednesday class: (a) Can the proposed MCPIF be improved? [07-May-2014] and (2) for Tuesday-Thursday class: (a) Gray areas in the application of the Data Privacy Act [08-May-2014]. These are their opinions on the subject matters:

M-W T-Th

No submissions: [MW] Arroyo (1), Carreon (1); Withdrawn: [MW] Luego

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.

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.

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.

HB3841 and SB2842 #RepublicAct10372


Licensed under CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivative 3.0 Philippine license.
[ Download PDF of original article ]


Senate Bill 2842,[1] and its counterpart House Bill 3841,[2] were passed by Congress. It would appear that the consolidated bill [3] was transmitted to the President on 29 January 2013. [4] The consolidated bill has not been signed into law yet, as of writing, [5] [6] but sentiments against the legislation were made public on 14 February 2013,[7] and responded to by the Philippine Intellectual Property Office. [8]

Update: The consolidated bills were signed into law (Republic Act 10372) on 28 February 2013.


I. Development
II. Organizational matters: Sections 6, and 7; and proposed Section 9-A, RA 8792
    A. Warrantless Search
III. Definitions: Sections 171.3, and 171.9; and proposed Sections 171.12 and 171.13, RA 8792
    A. Communication to the public
    B. Reproduction
    C. Technology Measures, and Rights Management Information
IV. Assignment, Licensing, and Transfer: Sections 180, 181, and 183, RA 8792
    A. Statement of Accounts under the proposed Section 180.5
    B. Collecting Society accreditation
V. Limitations of copyright: Sections 184, 185, 188, and 190, RA 8792
    A. Limitation for the benefit of the blind, visually or reading-impaired persons
    B. Fair Use
    C. Reprographic reproduction of copies for libraries
    D. Removal of the allowance of limited importation under Section 190.1, RA 8293
    E. Rules relevant to importation and exportation
VI. Deposit: Section 191, RA 8792
VII. Term of Moral Rights: Section 198, RA 8792
VIII. Neighboring Rights: Sections 203, 204, 208, and 212, RA 8792
    A. Performers’ Rights
    B. Rights of Producers of Sound Recordings
C. Limitations on other rights (Section 212)
IX. Infringement and Institution of Actions: Sections 216, 217, 218, and 226; and the proposed Section 220A, RA 8792
    A. Technology Circumvention as Aggravating circumstance (Sections 216 and 217)
    B. Safe harbor (Sections 216 and 217, RA 8293; in relation to Sections 30 and 33, RA 8792)
    C. Disclosure of Information (Section 220A)
        1. Valid search and seizure; reasonable suspicion
        2. Public funds for public purpose, not for private gain
X. IP Policies for academic institutions: Proposed new Section 230
XI. Conclusion


Continue reading

15 January 2013 #RA10175

Today marks the day for the oral arguments for and against the constitutionality of Republic Act 10175, or the Anti-Cybercrime law, at the Philippine Supreme Court. Netizens once again call for profile/account “blackouts” similar to that made on 2 October 2012, when the law was supposed to be made effective days after its publication (until its implementation was suspended due to a Temporary Restraining Order [TRO] by the Court).


I. Privacy of Communication and correspondence, and Right to Due Process
II. Freedom of expression, and Internet Libel
III. Actual controversy
IV. Cybercrime Law


Continue reading

Students’ Take: RA 10173, SB 3327 viz RA 10175, and Copyright Reform

For the second semester of SY 2012-2013, my students in Technology and the Law are given the task of discussing (1) the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173), (2) the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom (MCPIF, SB 3327). These are their opinions on the subject matters:

(1) Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173) (8 December 2012); (2) Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom (MCPIF, SB 3327) (12 January 2013); (3) The direction for Philippine Copyright Reform (9 March 2013)

No verifiable post(s): Garillo (3), Longboy (2,3), Mendoza-Bagnes (3), Rosero (1,2,3); Submitted, but no verifiable post(s): Zaraspe (3), Tiongson (3); Posted erroneous subject matter: Abucejo (1); Withdrawn: Tan, De Castro, Ortega

Batch 14’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.