C.
Originator - person by whom, or on whose behalf, the data message
UNCITRAL MODEL LAW ON E-COMMERCE (MLEC)
I. Legal basis - UNGA Resolution 51/162
II. Purpose - to enable and facilitate commerce conducted using electronic
means by providing national legislators with a set of internationally
acceptable rules aimed at removing legal obstacles and increasing legal
predictability for e-commerce
III. Fundamental principles
A. Non-discrimination - ensures that a document would not be denied
legal effect, validity or enforceability solely on the grounds that it is
in electronic form
(NOTE: This principle is embodied in Article 5 of the law and is
sometimes referred to as media neutrality)
ARTICLE 5 BIS ON INCORPORATION: Information shall not be denied
legal effect, validity or enforceability solely on the grounds that it is not
contained, but is merely referred to in the data message.
B. Technological neutrality - mandates the adoption of provisions that
are neutral with respect to technology used; this aims to
accommodate any developments without further legislative work
C. Functional equivalence - lays out criteria under which e-
communications may be considered equivalent to paper-based
communication; sets out the specific requirements that e-
communications need to meet in order to fulfill the same purposes
and functions as traditional paper-based system
IV. Definitions (Article 2)
A. Data message - information generated, sent, received or stored by
electronic, optical or similar means
B. Electronic data interchange (EDI) - means the electronic transfer
from computer to computer of information using an agreed
standard to structure the information
purports to have been sent or generated prior to storage, if any
ARTICLE 13: A data message is that of the originator if sent by:
A. Originator itself
B. Person who had the authority to act on behalf of the originator
C. Information system programmed by, or on behalf of, the
originator
An addressee may regard a data message as that of the originator if:
A. Addressee properly applied a procedure previously agreed to
by the originator to ascertain
B. Data message resulted from actions of a person whose
relationship with the originator or his agent enabled that
person to gain access to a method used by the originator
Thereafter, the addressee is entitled to act on that assumption.
ARTICLE 14: When the parties agree that receipt of the data message
has to be acknowledged, the following rules are to observed:
A. No agreement as to form of acknowledgment
1. Given by any communication by the addressee
2. Given by any conduct of the addressee
B. Data message is conditional on receipt of acknowledgment -
data message is treated as not sent, until acknowledgment
received
D. Addressee - person who is intended by the originator to receive the
data message
(NOTE: “Originator” and “Addressee”, however, is exclusive of
intermediaries)
E. Intermediary - person who, on behalf of another, sends, receives or
stores data message or provides other services with respect to that
data message
F. Information system - means a system for generating, sending,
receiving, storing or otherwise processing data messages
V. Interpretation 4. Admissibility (Article 9) - a data message shall not be denied
A. GR (Article 3)- regard must be had to international origin of the law admissibility on the sole ground that it is a data message
and the need to promote uniformity in its application and the 5. Evidential weight (Article 9) - information in the form of a
observance of good faith data message shall be given due evidential weight.
B. XPN (Article 4) - parties involved may vary by agreement as to the ADMISSIBILITY EVIDENTIAL WEIGHT
processing of data messages
VI. Application Refers to relevance and Refers to info or document already
competence of an info or admitted, and subsequently, its
A. General application (Article 1) - law applies to any kind of
document to an issue tendency to persuade
information in the form of a data message used in the context of
6. Retention (Article 10) - requirement for retention of
commercial activities
(NOTE: “Commercial” covers matters arising from all relationships documents or info is met if:
a. Info is accessible
of a commercial nature.)
B. Application of requirements to data messages; in re: principle of b. Data message is retained in the format it was
generated, sent, or received
non-discrimination
1. In writing (Article 6) - met if the information contained in a c. Info enables the identification of the origin and
destination of data message and date and time it
data message is accessible so as to be usable for
subsequent reference was sent or received
VII. Communication of data messages
2. Signature (Article 7) - met if:
a. A method is used to identify the person and to A. Contracts (Article 11) - offer and acceptance may be expressed by
means of data messages; if done so, contract created shall not be
indicate his approval of the information
b. Such method is reliable denied validity or enforceability
B. Recognition (Article 12) - as between the originator and the
(NOTE: Test for reliability is provided under the
Model Law on E-Signatures) addressee, a declaration of will or other statement shall not be
denied effect, validity, or enforceability
3. In original form (Article 8) - met if:
a. There is reliable assurance as to the integrity of the
info UNCITRAL MODEL LAW ON E-SIGNATURES (MLES)
TEST FOR DETERMINING INTEGRITY: W/N information has remained I. Legal basis - UNGA Resolution A/56/588
complete and unaltered II. Fundamental principles - observes same principles as MLEC
b. Where presentation is required, that info is capable
of being displayed
III. Purpose - to enable and facilitate the use of e-signatures by establishing
criteria of technical reliability for the equivalence between electronic and
hand-written signatures
IV. Definitions (Article 2)
A. Electronic signature - data in electronic form in, affixed to or
logically associated with, a data message, which may be used to
identify the signatory
B. Certificate - data message or other record confirming the link
between a signatory and signature creation data
C. Data message - information generated, sent, received or stored by
electronic, optical or similar means
D. Signatory - person that holds signature creation data and acts either
on its own behalf or on behalf of the person it represents
E. Certification service provider (“CSP”) - person that issues certificates
and may provide other services related to e-signatures
F. Relying party - person that may act on the basis of a certificate or an
e-signature
V. Interpretation
A. GR (Article 4)- regard must be had to international origin of the law
and the need to promote uniformity in its application and the
observance of good faith
B. XPN (Article 5) - law may be derogated from or their effect be varied
by agreement
(NOTE: Provisions on interpretation are essentially the same with MLES)
VI. Application
A. General application (Article 1) - law applies where e-signatures are
used in the context of commercial activities; does not override any
rule of law intended for protection of consumers
B. Application of requirement for a signature (Article 6) - requirement
is met if an e-signature is used that is as reliable as was appropriate
for the purpose which the data message was generated tro
communicated
CRITERIA FOR RELIABILITY:
A. Signature creation data (“SCD”) are linked to the signatory
B. SCD were under the control of the signatory
C. Any alteration to the e-signature, made after the time of
signing, is detectable
D. Where the purpose of the signature is to provide assurance as
to the integrity of the into to which it relates, any alteration
made to the info is detectable.
VII. Conduct of signatory (Article 8)
A. Must exercise reasonable care to avoid unauthorized use of its SCD
B. Utilize means made available by the CSP pursuant to the law, or
otherwise use reasonable efforts, to notify any person that may
reasonably be expected by signatory to rely on or to provide
services in support of the e-sig, if:
1. Signatory knows the SCD have been compromised
2. Circumstances known to signatory give rise to a substantial
risk that the SCD may have been compromised
C. Where a certificate is used to support the e-signature, exercise
reasonable care to ensure the accuracy and completeness of all
material representations made by signatory relevant to the
certificate
VIII. Conduct of the certification service provider (“CSP”)
A. Act in accordance with representations made by it with respect to
its policies and practices
B. Exercise reasonable care to ensure the accuracy and completeness
of all material representations made by it that are relevant to the
certificate
C. Provide means that enable a relying party to ascertain from the
certificate the ff:
 1. Identity of the CSP
2. That the signatory identified in the certificate had control of
the SCD at the time certificate was issued
3. That SCD were valid at or before the time the certificate was
issued
D. Provide means that enable a relying party to ascertain, where
relevant, from the certificate the ff:
1. Method used to identify the signatory
2. Any limitation on the purpose or value for which the SCD or
certificate may be used
3. That the SCD are valid and not compromised
4. Any limitation on the scope or extent of liability stipulated
by the CSP
5. W/N means exist for signatory to give notice
6. W/N a timely revocation service is offered
E. Where notice services are offered, provide means for a signatory to
give notice; where revocation services are offered, ensure the
availability of timely revocation service
F. Utilize trustworth systems, procedures, and human resources in
performing its services
ARTICLE 10 ON TRUSTWORTHINESS: In determining trustworthiness of
CSP, regard may be had to the following factors:
1. Financial and human resources
2. Quality of hardware and software systems
3. Procedures for processing of and applications for certificates
and retention of records
4. Availability of info to signatories identified in certificates and to
potential relying parties
5. Regularity and extent of audit by an independent body
6. Existence of a declaration by the State, an accreditation body,
or the CSP regarding compliance
7. Any other relevant factor
IX. Conduct of relying party (Article 11)
A. Must take reasonable steps to verify the reliability of an e-signature
B. Where e-signature is supported by a certificate, to take reasonable
steps to:
1. Verify the validity, suspension, or revocation of the
certificate
2. Observe any limitation with respect to the certificate
X. Recognition of foreign cert and e-signatures (Article 12)
A. Cert or e-signature is legally effective regardless of the geographical
location where it was issued, created or used or where the place of
business of the issuer or signatory is located
B. Cert issued or e-signature created or used outside the enacting
State shall have same legal effect in such state if it offers a
substantially equivalent level of reliability
C. In determining “substantially equivalent level of reliability”, regard
shall be had to recognized international standards and other
relevant factors
D. Notwithstanding the above-stated, the parties may agree to the use
of certain types of certs or e-signatures and such agreement shall be
recognized as sufficient for cross-border recognition
RA 8792 (E-Commerce Act)
I. Declaration of policies (Section 2)
A. Vital role of ICT in nation-building
B. Need to create an in formation-friendly environment
C. Primary responsibility of private sector in contributing investments
and services in ICT
D. Need to develop HR for the information age
E. Obligation to facilitate the transfer and promotion of technology
 F. Ensure network security, connectivity, and neutrality of technology
G. Need to marshal, organize, deploy national information
infrastructures
II. Objective (Section 3) - to facilitate domestic and international processes re:
information through the utilization of electronic, optical and similar medium
to recognize the authenticity and reliability of EDMs or EDs related to such
activities and to promote the universal use of electronic transactions
III. Application (Section 4) - applies to any kind of EDM and ED used in the
context of commercial and non-commercial activities
(NOTE: This in contrast with the MLEC, which only provides for commercial
activities)
IV. Definitions
A. Addressee - same definition used in MLES
B. Computer - any device or apparatus which, by electronic, electro-
mechanical, or magnetic impulse, or by other means, is capable of
receiving, recording, transmitting, storing, processing, retrieving, or
producing information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of
written expression according to mathematical and logical rules or of
performing any one or more of these functions
C. Electronic Data Message (EDM) - info generated, sent, received or
stored by electronic, optical or similar means
(NOTE: Congress deliberately omitted the phrase “but not limited
to, electronic data interchange (EDI), electronic mail, telegram, telex
or telecopy” suggested in MLEC. See MCC Industrial case)
D. Information and Communications System - refers to a system
intended for and capable of generating, sending, receiving, storing,
or otherwise processing EDMs or electronic documents (EDs) and
includes the computer system or other similar device by or in which
data is recorded or stored and any procedures related to the
recording or storage of EDMs or EDs.
E. Electronic Signature - any distinctive mark, characteristic and/or
sound in electronic form, representing the identity of a person and
attached to or logically associated with the EDM or electronic
document or any methodology or procedures employed or adopted
by a person and executed or adopted by such person with the
intention of authenticating or approving an EDM or ED.
F. Electronic Document (ED) - refers to info or the representation of
information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of written
expression, described or however represented, by which a right is
established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may
be prove and affirmed, which is receive, recorded, transmitted,
stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically.
G. Electronic Key - a secret code which secures and defends sensitive
information that cross over public channels into a form
decipherable only with a matching electronic key
H. Intermediary - same definition used in MLES
I. Originator - same definition used in MLES
J. Service provider - provider of:
1. On-line services or network access or the operator of
facilities; or
2. Necessary technical means by which EDs of an originator
may be stored and made accessible to designated or
undesignated third party.
V. Legal recognition
(NOTE: The chapter on legal recognition follows the MLES principle of
functional equivalence)
A. Electronic Data Message (Section 6) - info shall not be denied legal
effect, validity or enforceability solely on the grounds that it is in the
data message purporting to give rise to such legal effect, or that it is
merely referred to in that EDM
 B. Electronic documents (Section 7) - shall have the legal effect, validity
or enforceability as any other document or legal writing, and:
1. In writing - met if the ED maintains its integrity and
reliability and can be authenticated so as to be usable for
subsequent reference
TEST FOR DETERMINING INTEGRITY: W/N document has remained
complete and unaltered
TEST FOR DETERMINING RELIABILITY: W/N document is reliable in light
of the purpose for which it was generated and in light of all relevant
circumstances.
2. In original form - observes same standards as provided in
MLEC
Moreover, an electronic document shall be the functional
equivalent of a written document.
C. Electronic signatures (Section 8) - shall be equivalent to the
signature on a written document, if:
1. Signature complies with the definition of an e-signature
under the Act
2. Method of signing is not alterable by the parties interested
in the document
3. Method is used to identify the signatory and to indicate said
his access to the electronic document
4. Method is reliable and appropriate
5. It is necessary for the signatory, in order to proceed with
the transaction, to have executed or provided the e-
signature
6. Other party is authorized and enabled to verify the e-
signature and to make the decision to proceed thereafter.
(NOTE: E-signatures that don’t comply with these requirements
can still be used to prove the consent of an individual to the
document which they signed electronically)
VI. ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS
A. Definition: (Section 4 (a) of Revised Rules on Evidence)
- An “original” of a document is the document itself or any
counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing
or issuing it.
- If data is stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or
other output readable by sight or other means, shown to reflect the
data accurate “original.”
B. REQUIREMENTS TO BE ORIGINAL: Where the law requires information to be
presented or retained in its original form, that requirement is met by an
electronic data message or electronic document if;
a. the integrity of the information from the time when it was first
generated in its final form, as an electronic data message or
electronic document is shown by evidence aliunde or otherwise;
and
b. where it is required that information be presented, that the
information is capable of being displayed to the person to whom it
is to be presented.
● CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING INTEGRITY
a) whether the information has remained complete and
unaltered, apart from the addition of any endorsement and
 any change which arises in the normal course of
communication, storage and display ; and
b) the standard of reliability required shall be assessed in the
light of purpose for which the information was generated and
in the light of all the relevant circumstances.
VII. AUTHENTICATION
Electronic documents, electronic data messages and electronic signatures, shall be
authenticated by demonstrating, substantiating and validating a claimed identity of
a user, device, or another entity in an information or communication system, among
other ways.
A. E-SIGNATURE:
Shall be authenticated by (Section 11 (a))
1) proof than a letter , character, number or other symbol in electronic
form representing the persons named in and attached to or logically
associated with an electronic data message, electronic document,
or
2) that the appropriate methodology or security procedures, when
applicable, were employed or adopted by such person, with the
intention of authenticating or approving in an electronic data
message or electronic document.
B. E-DATA MESSAGE OR E-DOCUMENT
shall be authenticated by (Section 11 (b))
1. proof that an appropriate security procedure,
2. when applicable was adopted and employed for the purpose of
verifying the originator of an electronic data message and/or
electronic document, or
3. detecting error or alteration in the communication, content or
storage of an electronic document or electronic data message from
a specific point, which, using algorithm or codes, identifying words
or numbers, encryptions, answers back or acknowledgement
procedures, or similar security devices.
C. BURDEN OF PROOF: The person seeking to introduce an E-data message or
electronic document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its
authenticity by evidence capable of supporting a finding that the electronic
data message or electronic document is what the person claims it to be.
● ESTABLISHING INTEGRITY
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the integrity of the information
and communication system in which an electronic data message or
electronic document is recorded or stored may be established in any legal
proceeding -
a.) By evidence that at all material times the information and
communication system or other similar device was operating in a manner
that did not affect the integrity of the electronic data message and/or
electronic document, and there are no other reasonable grounds to doubt
the integrity of the information and communication system,
b.) By showing that the electronic data message and/or electronic
document was recorded or stored by a party to the proceedings who is
adverse in interest to the party using it; or
c.) By showing that the electronic data message and/or electronic
document was recorded or stored in the usual and ordinary course of
business by a person who is not a party to the proceedings and who did not
act under the control of the party using the record.
VIII. ADMISSIBILITY
 In any legal proceedings, nothing in the application of the rules on evidence
shall deny the admissibility of an electronic data message or electronic document in
evidence -
(a) On the sole ground that it is in electronic form; or
(b) On the ground that it is not in the standard written form, and the
electronic data message or electronic document meeting, and complying
with the requirements under Sections 6 or 7 hereof shall be the best
evidence of the agreement and transaction contained therein.
In assessing the evidential weight of an electronic data message or electronic
document, the reliability of the manner in which it was generated, stored or
communicated, the reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified,
and other relevant factors shall be given due regard.
IX. RETENTION
Notwithstanding any provision of law, rule or regulation to the contrary -
(a) The requirement in any provision of law that certain documents be
retained in their original form is satisfied by retaining them in the form of an
electronic data message or electronic document which -
(i) Remains accessible so as to be usable for subsequent reference;
(ii) Is retained in the format in which it was generated, sent or
received, or in a format which can be demonstrated to accurately represent
the electronic data message or electronic document generated, sent or
received;
(iii) Enables the identification of its originator and addressee, as well
as the determination of the date and the time it was sent or received.
(b) The requirement referred to in paragraph (a) is satisfied by using the
services of a third party, provided that the conditions set forth in subparagraph s (i),
(ii) and (iii) of paragraph (a) are met.
X. PROOF BY AFFIDAVIT - REMOVE????
The matters referred to in Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data (Section 12) on
admissibility and on the presumption of integrity (Section 9), may be presumed to
have been established by an affidavit given to the best of the deponent's
knowledge subject to the rights of parties in interest as defined in the following
section.
XI. CROSS-EXAMINATION - REMOVE???
(1) A deponent of an affidavit referred to in Section 14 that has been introduced in
evidence may be cross-examined as of right by a party to the proceedings who is
adverse in interest to the party who has introduced the affidavit or has caused the
affidavit to be introduced.
(2) Any party to the proceedings has the right to cross-examine a person referred to
in section 11, paragraph 4, sub paragraph c.
XII. COMMUNICATION - Communication of Electronic Data Message or Electronic
Documents(Chap III)
A. Contracts - Same rule(SR): Model Law on E- Commerce - VII - A
B. Electronic Bank transactions - consummated upon actual
dispensation of cash, debit of account or credit to another.Whether
initiated by depositor or authorized collecting party.
C. Recognition - SR: Model Law on E- Commerce VII - B
D. Attribution - SR: Model Law on E- Commerce Art. 13 and 14
XPN to Art. 13 par 2/ Par. 3 of Sec 18 E- commerce Act
 1.Addressee received notice that the e-message or e-doc is not
from originator and the addressee had reasonable time to act
accordingly.
2)Addressee knew or should have known, had it exercised
reasonable care or exercised procedure, that e- message/doc :
a. was not from originator
b. resulted in error as received
c. was a duplicate
E. Error - addressee not entitled to regard e- message received as what the
originator intended to send when he knew or should have known, had he exercised
reasonable care and agreed procedure :
1. Transmission resulted in error therein or in the e-message/doc
when it enters the designated information system.
2. E- message/doc i sent to an IS not designated by the addressee
F. Agreement on Acknowledgement of receipt - SR: Model Law on E-
Commerce - Art. 14
Note: When originator has not stated the effect of e-message/doc
conditional on receipt of acknowledgement and acknowledgement was
not received on time specified:
- Originator shall give notice to the addressee stating no
acknowledgement was received and specifying reasonable time by
which acknowledgement must be received.
- If acknowledgement is not received after notice, the originator may
upon notice to addrese, treat e-message/doc as never been sent .
G. Time of Dispatch - entry in IS outside control of originator or person in his
behalf, unless other agreed by parties.
H. Time of Receipt - unless otherwise agreed by parties, time of receipt is as
follows:
1. Has designated IS - time e- message/doc enters the system(if: parties as
both participants in IS - time of retrieved)
2. Sent to IS not designated - time retrieved
3. Has no designated IS - time it enters IS of addressee
I. Place of Dispatch - unless otherwise agreed by parties:
1. Dispatch - originator’s place of business
2.Recieved - addressee’s place of business
*more than one place of business - place of business that has closest
relationship to transaction
*no place of business - habitual residence(place of incorporation or
constitution)
J. Choice of Security Methods - parties to e- transaction free to:
1. determine the type and level of security needed
2. select and use appropriate technological methods that suit their needs.
ELECTRONIC COMMERCE IN CARRIAGE OF GOODS
I. Applies to the following actions in relation to carriage of goods(Part III, Sec
25):
 1. furnishing the marks, number, quantity or weight of goods;
2. stating or declaring the nature or value of goods;
3. issuing a receipt for goods;
4. confirming that goods have been loaded;
5. notifying a person of terms and conditions of the contract;
6. giving instructions to a carrier;
7. claiming delivery of goods;
8. authorizing release of goods;
9. giving notice of loss of, or damage to goods;
10. giving any other notice or statement in connection with the performance of
the contract;
11. undertaking to deliver goods to a named person or a person authorized to
claim delivery;
12. granting, acquiring, renouncing, surrendering, transferring or negotiating
rights in goods;
13. acquiring or transferring rights and obligations under the contract.
B. Transport Documents - when transactions above is required to be 1)in writing
or be in paper document, requirement is met if action is carried out using one or
more e-messages/doc
- This applies whether requirement is form of obligation or law simply
provides consequence for failing to carry out the action in writing or n
paper doc.
Standard of reliability - assessed in light of purpose and circumstances
Note: E-message/doc must first be terminated for a replacement paper doc
to be valid in transactions no. 12 and 13 in Sec 25. Replacement shall not
affect rights and obligations involved.
ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS IN GOVERNMENT
A. Government Use - All dept., bureaus, offices, agencies, GOCC’s shall:
1.Accept creation, filing, retention of docs in the form of e-
messages/docs.
2. Issue permits, licenses, or approval in the form of e- data
message/docs.
3. Require or accept payments, and issue receipts acknowledging
such payments, through systems using e-message/doc.
4. Transact gov. Business and/or perform gov. Functions using e-
message/doc and authorized to adopt and promulgate rule on:
a. Manner and format of e-message/doc is filed, created,
retained or sutained
b. Use of e-signature, type of e-signature
c. Format of e- message/doc and maner the e-signature shall
be affixed in it.
d. Control process to enure adequate integrity, security, and
confidentiality or e-message/doc.records/payments
e. Other attributes required
f. Full or limited use of doc and paper
B. RPWEB - directed to promote the use of E-message/doc in gov. or gen
public.
DTI, NTC, NCC(National Computer Center) - directed to promote and
implement policy environment and regulatory and non- regulatory
 framework that shall lead to reduction of costs of lease lines, land, the infringing activity or unlawful act of another person or
satellite, cheap broadband etc. prty: Provided the following shall not be affected:

C. Authority of DTI and participating entities a.Any obligation founded on contract

b.obligation of service provider as such under a licensing or
other regulatory regime established under written law
FINAL PROVISIONS c.Obligation imposed under written law
d.Civil liability of any party to the extent that such liability
A. Extent of Liability of Service providers * forms as the basis for injunctive relief issued by a court
issued by a court under any law requiring service provider
GR: No person shall be subject to any civil or criminal liability in respect to to take and refrain from actions necessary to remove. Block,
e- message/doc for acting as a service provider that merely provides access or deny access to any material or preserve evidence of a
if such liability if founded on: violation of law.

1. Obligations and liabilities of parties under the e-message/doc B.Lawful Access( electronic file, electronic signature) - only authorized and
2. Making, publication, dissemination or distribution of such material enforced in favor of an individual or entity having the legal right to the
or any statement made in such material, including infringement of possession or use of the plaintext, electronic signature file and solely for
right subsisting in or in relation to such material provided: authorized purposes.

a. Service provider has no actual knowledge, or is not aware of C.Obligation of Confidentiality - any person who obtained access to any
the facts or circumstances from which it is apparent, that electronic key, e-message/doc, book, register, correspondence, information,
the making, publication, dissemination or distribution of other material pursuant to any powets conferred under this act , shall not
such material is unlawful or infringes any rights subsisting in convey to or share the same with any other person.
or inn relation to such material
b. The service provider does not knowingly receive a financial
benefit directly attributable to the lawful infringing activity. D.Penalties - Fine and/or imprisonment for the following acts:
c. Service provider does not directly commit any infringement
or any other unlawful act and does not induce or caue Act Penalty
another person or party to commit any infringement or
other unlawful act and/or does not benefit financially from
1. Hacking/ cracking - unauthorized Fine - P100k and
access into or interference in a maximum
computer system; or access in order commensurate
to damage
to corrupt, alter, steal, or destroy
incurred
using a computer or other similar
information and communication Imprisonment - 6
devices, without the knowledge and mos- 3 yrs
consent of the owner of computer or
system, including introduction of
computer viruses resulting in
corruption, destruction, alteration,
theft, loss of e- data
Piracy - unauthorized copying, Fine - min:
reproduction, dissemination, P100,000 - max:
distribution, importation, use, commensurate
removal, alteration, substitution, to damage
modification, storage, uploading, incurred
downloading, communication,
making available to public or Imprisonment -
broadcasting protected material, e- 6mos- 3yrs
sign, copyrighted works, including
protected sound recordings or
phonograph or info on protected
works through but not limited to the
internet
Same penalties
Violations of the Consumer Act or
Republic Act No. 7394 and other
pertinent laws through transactions
using e-message/doc
Max - P1,000,000
Violations of provision of this act or 6 years
imprisonment
E. IRR - by DTI, DBM, BSP in coordination with other related agencies.
F. Oversight Committee - Congressional oversight committee
Appropriations
G.Statutory Interpretation and Variation by Agreement - SR: Model Law on
E- Commerce - V
Reciprocity - all benefits, privileges, advantages of statutory rules shall be
enjoyed by parties whose countries of origin grants the same benefits and
privileges or advantages to Filipino citizens.
I. AM 01-7-01-SC (Rules on Electronic Evidence of 2001)
I. Scope (Rule 1, Section 1) - applies whenever an ED or EDM is offered or used
in evidence. The present rules were drafted in consideration of the E-
Commerce Law.
II. Application (Rule 1, Section 2)
A. Civil actions
B. Quasi-judicial and administrative cases
C. Criminal actions
(NOTE: Criminal actions were added upon subsequent resolution of the
Supreme Court in 2002)
RULE 1, SEC 3: Rules of Court and pertinent provisions of status
containing rules on evidence apply suppletorily.
III. Definitions (Rule 2, Section 1)
 A. Certificate - an electronic document issued to support a digital
signature which purports to confirm the identity or other significant
characteristics of the persons who holds a particular key pair
B. Computer - same definition used in E-Commerce Act
C. Digital signature - an electronic signature consisting of a
transformation of an ED or EDM using an asymmetric or public
cryptosystem such that a person having the initial untransformed
electronic document and the signer’s public key can accurately
determine:
1. W/N transformation was created using the private key that
corresponds to the signer’s public key; and
2. W/N initial electronic document had been altered after the
transformation was made
D. Digitally signed - an ED or EDM bearing a digital signature verified by
the public key listed in a certificate.
E. Electronic data message - same definition used in E-Commerce Act
F. Electronic document - same definition used in E-Commerce Act.
However, the Rules include digitally signed documents and any
print-out or output, readable by sight or other means, which
accurately reflects the EDM or ED.
G. Electronic signature - same definition used in E-Commerce Act.
However, the Rules provide that an e-signature includes digital
signatures.
H. Ephemeral electronic communication - telephone conversations,
text messages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming
video, and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of
which is not recorded or retained.
RULE 11, SEC 2: Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven
by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has
personal knowledge thereof. In the absence or unavailability of such
witnesses, other competent evidence may be admitted.
See People v Enojas for jurisprudential support.
IV. Construction (Rule 2, Section 2)
A. Liberally construed
B. Interpretation must be made in consideration of the international
origin of the E-Commerce Act.
V. Characteristics of Electronic Documents (Rule 3)
A. Functional equivalent of paper-based documents
B. Admissible if compliant with rules on admissibility per Rules of Court
and related laws
C. If privileged in character, this character of a communication is not
lost on the ground that it is in the form of an electronic document
VI. Best Evidence Rule (Rule 4)
A. Original - an electronic document shall be regarded as the
equivalent of an original if it is a printout or output readable by
sight or other means, shown to reflect the data accurately
B. Copies
1. GR: a copy of an electronic document shall be regarded as
the equivalent of an original
2. XPN:
a. Genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of
the original
b. In the circumstances it would be unjust to admit the
copy in lieu of the original
VII. Burden of proof (Rule 5, Section 1) - on person seeking to introduce the
electronic document in any legal proceeding
RULE 9 ON METHOD OF PROOF: All matters relating to the admissibility
and evidentiary weight of an ED may be established by an affidavit
stating facts of direct personal knowledge of the affiant or based on
 authentic records. The affidavit must affirmatively show the competence
of the affiant to testify on the matters contained therein.
VIII. Manner of authentication
A. Electronic document (Rule 5, Section 2)
1. By evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person
purported to have signed the same
2. By evidence that other appropriate security procedures or
devices authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for
authentication of electronic documents were applied to the
document
3. By other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the
satisfaction of the judge
B. Electronic signature (Rule 6, Sec 2)
1. By evidence that a method or process was utilized to establish a
digital signature and verify the same;
2. By any other means provided by law
3. By any other means satisfactory to the judge as establishing the
genuineness of the electronic signature.
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS RE: SIGNATURES:
A. On Electronic Signatures:
1. E-signature is that of the person to whom it correlates
2. E-signature was affixed by that person with the
intention of authenticating or approving the electronic
document to which it is related or to indicate such
person's consent to the transaction embodied therein
3. Methods or processes utilized to affix or verify the
electronic signature operated without error or fault.
B. On Digital Signatures:
1. Information contained in a certificate is correct;
2. D-signature was created during the operational period
of a certificate
3. No cause exists to render a certificate invalid or
revocable
4. Message associated with a d-signature has not been
altered from the time it was signed
5. Certificate had been issued by the authority indicated
SECTION 9, E-COMMERCE ACT: Presumption is rebuttable if the relying
party knows or has notice of defects in or unreliability of the signature
or when reliance on the e-signature is not reasonable under the
circumstances.
IX. Evidentiary weight (Rule 7, Section 1) - the following factors are to be
considered in assessing the evidentiary weight of an ED:
A. Reliability of the manner or method in which it was generated,
stored, or communicated in light of all the circumstances as well as
any relevant agreement
B. Reliability of the manner in which its originator was identified
C. Integrity of the info and communication system in which it was
recorded or stored
D. Familiarity of the witness or the person who made the entry with
the info and communication system
E. Nature and quality of the info
F. Other factors
RULE 8: Business records are excepted from the rule on hearsay
evidence. This may only be overcome by evidence of untrustworthiness
of the source of information or the method or circumstances of the
preparation, transmission or storage thereof.
CASE DOCTRINE
MCC Industrial ● The terms “electronic data message” and
v Ssangyong “electronic document” do not include a
facsimile transmission.
 ● In the formulation of the E-Commerce Act, the
legislature omitted “but not limited to,
electronic data interchange (EDI), electronic
mail, telegram, telex or telecopy” suggested in
the MLEC definition.
● Thus, under the E-Commerce Act, what is
considered is virtual or paperless writings which
technically have no original copy to speak of. On
the contrary, facsimile transmissions have
original paper-based copies. Thus, it could not
be contemplated under such law.
Garcillano v ● The Senators in this case rely on the E-
House of Commerce act to justify valid publication of its
Representative rules of procedure through the internet.
However, the E-Commerce Law merely
recognizes the admissibility in evidence (for
their being the original) of electronic data
messages and/or electronic documents. It does
not make the internet a medium for publishing
laws, rules, and regulations.
Ang v CA ● Rules on Electronic Evidence do not apply to
criminal actions. It applies only to civil, quasi-
judicial, and administrative proceedings.
● Decided in 2010, but has been OVERRULED.
Aznar v Citibank ● An exhibit can only be considered admissible if
its authenticity and due execution are
sufficiently established by the party which
profferred it to evidence.
● SEC 20, RULE 132, ROC: Authenticity and due
execution are proved either by:
a. Anyone who saw the document
executed or written
b. Evidence of the genuineness of the
signature or handwriting of the
maker
● Even applying the Rules on Electronic Evidence,
the party proffering the evidence must
demonstrate how the information reflected on
the print-out was generated and how the said
information could be relied upon as true.
NAPOCOR v ● What differentiates an electronic document
Codilla from a paper-based document is the manner
by which the information is processed. Clearly,
the information contained in an electronic
document is received, recorded, transmitted,
stored, processed, retrieved or produced
electronically.
● If any part of the information is recorded,
produced, or affixed (in this case, a signature)
manually, it cannot be considered an
electronic document.
People v Enojas ● Text messages, in order to be admitted to
evidence, are to be proved by the testimony of
a person who was a party to the same or has
personal knowledge of them.
● Decided in 2014; observes the NEW resolution
of the SC applying the Rules on Electronic
Evidence to criminal actions.
RA 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2021)
I. Cybercrime - also called computer crime is the use of a computer as an
instrument to further illegal ends such as committing fraud trafficking child
pornography, intellectual property violations, stealing identities or violation
of privacy.

II. CLASSIFICATION OF CYBERCRIME OFFENSES:
A. Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of
computer data and systems;
B. Computer-related Offenses; and
C. Content-related Offenses
III. Types of cybercrime covered under the Cybercrime Prevention Act:
Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and
systems;
A. Illegal Access: Access to a computer or any application without
permission.
B. Illegal Interception: Interception of any non-public communication
of computer data to, from, or within a computer system by an
unauthorized person.
C. Data Interference: Unauthorized tampering with, destroying,
deleting, or deteriorating computer data, electronic documents, or
electronic data messages, as well as the introduction or
transmission of viruses.
D. System Interference: Unauthorized interference with the operation
of a computer or computer network, including the introduction or
transmission of viruses, by inputting, transmitting, damaging,
deleting, deteriorating, altering, or suppressing computer data or
programmes, electronic data messages, or by deleting,
deteriorating, altering, or suppressing them.
E. Misuse of devices: Unauthorized use, possession, production, sale,
procurement, importation, distribution, or otherwise making
available of gadgets, computer programmes, or other materials
developed or adapted for committing any of the acts listed in
Republic Act 10175. Unauthorized use of a computer password,
access code, or similar data that allows the entire or a portion of a
computer system to be accessed with the intent of using it to
perpetrate any of the offenses listed in Republic Act 10175.
F. Cybersquatting: Acquisition of a domain name in bad faith on the
internet to profit, deceive, harm reputation, and prevent others
from registering it. Incudes:
● trademarks that were already registered at the time of
registration,
● names of people other than the registrant, and trademarks
that were purchased with intellectual property interests in
them,
● those who get domain names of prominent brands and
individuals who in turn are used to damage their reputation
can be sued under this provision.
Note that freedom of expression and infringement on trademarks or names
of persons are usually treated separately. A party can exercise freedom of
expression without necessarily violating the trademarks of a brand or the
names of persons.
Computer-related Offenses:
G. Computer related Forgery: Unauthorized input, alteration, or
deletion of computer data that results in inauthentic data with the
 intent that it be considered or acted on for legal purposes as if it
were authentic, regardless of whether the data is directly readable
and intelligible; or the act of knowingly using computer data that is
the product of computer-related forgery as defined here to
perpetuate.
H. Computer-related Fraud: Unauthorized access to, alteration of, or
deletion of computer data or programmes, or interference with the
operation of a computer system, with the purpose to cause
damage.
I. Computer-related Identity Theft: Unauthorized acquisition, use,
abuse, transfer, possession, change, or deletion of an individual’s
identifying information, whether natural or legal.
Content-related Offenses:
J. Cybersex: For favour or consideration, willful engagement,
maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any
lascivious presentation of sexual organs or sexual activity via a
computer system.
K. Child Pornography: Unlawful or banned activities conducted
through a computer system, as defined and punished by Republic
Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009.
L. Libel: Acts of libel that are illegal or forbidden under Article 355 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and are committed using a
computer system or any other similar means that may be created in
the future.
**Libel - defamation of character by writings or other
means. Libel committed by writing, printing, lithography,
engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical
exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any other similar
means is punishable by prison correctional for the minimum
and medium periods, or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000
pesos, or both, in addition to any civil action that the
offended party may bring. (RPC)
Other Offenses:
M. Aiding or Abetting in the commission of cybercrime: Anyone who
knowingly assists or abets the conduct of any of the offenses listed
in this Act will be held accountable.
N. Attempt in the commission of cybercrime: Any person who willfully
attempts to commit any of the offenses enumerated in this Act shall
be held liable.
All crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the
use of information and communications technologies shall be
covered by the relevant provisions of this Act.
IV. Corporate Liability: When any of the punishable acts herein defined are
knowingly committed on behalf of or for the benefit of a juridical person by
a natural person acting either individually or as part of an organ of the
juridical person who has a leading position within, based on: [Section 9]
(a) a power of representation of the juridical person provided the
act committed falls within the scope of such authority; or
(b) an authority to make decisions on behalf of the juridical person.
It also includes the commission of any of the penal acts made possible due
 to the lack of supervision, provided that the act committed falls within the
scope of such authority; or
(c) an authority to exercise control inside the juridical person.
V. PENALTIES:
a. Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer
data and systems and computer related offenses -prision mayor or a fine of
at least PhP200,000.00 up to a maximum amount commensurate to the
damage incurred or both.
b. Misuse of Devices - prision mayor or a fine of not more than PhP500,000.00
or both.
c. Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer
data and systems against critical infrastructure - reclusion temporal or a fine
of at least PhP500,000.00 up to maximum amount commensurate to the
damage incurred or both
d. Cybersex - prision mayor or a fine of at least PhP200,000.00 but not
exceeding PhP1,000,000.00 or both
e. Child Pornography - penalties as enumerated in Republic Act No. 9775 or
the “Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009”: by one (1) degree higher if
committed through a computer system
f. Unsolicited Commercial Communications - arresto mayor or a fine of at least
PhP50,000.00 but not exceeding PhP250,000.00 or both
g. Other Offenses - imprisonment 1 degree lower than that of the prescribed
penalty for the offense or a fine of at least PhP100,000.00 but not exceeding
PhP500,000.00 or both
VI. Enforcement and Implementation
a. National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the Philippine National Police
(PNP)
- responsible for enforcement of the provisions of this Act.
- shall organize a cybercrime unit or center manned by special
investigators to exclusively handle cases involving violations of this Act.
- with due cause, shall be authorized to collect or record by technical or
electronic means traffic data in real-time associated with specified
communications transmitted by means of a computer system
Traffic data refer only to the communication’s origin, destination,
route, time, date, size, duration, or type of underlying service, but
not content, nor identities
All other data to be collected or seized or disclosed will require a
court warrant.
b. Department of Justice (DOJ) - reviews and monitors reports from the NBI
and PNP including pre-operation, post-operation and investigation results
and such other documents.
c. Court Warrant - shall only be issued or granted upon written application and
the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the
witnesses he may produce and the showing:
i. that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes
has been committed, or is being committed, or is about to be
committed;
ii. that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence that will
be obtained is essential to the conviction of any person for, or to
the solution of, or to the prevention of, any such crimes
iii. that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such
evidence.
d. Preservation of Computer Data
- Traffic data - minimum period of six (6) months from the date of the
transaction.
- Content data - six (6) months from the date of receipt of the order
from law enforcement authorities requiring its preservation.
 e. Disclosure of Computer Data - a person or service provider is required to
disclose or submit subscriber’s information, traffic data or relevant data in
his/its possession or control within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt of
the order in relation to a valid complaint officially docketed and assigned for
investigation.
f. Search, Seizure and Examination of Computer Data
- Powers and duties of authorities Where a search and seizure
warrant is properly issued:
(a) To secure a computer system or a computer data storage
medium;
(b) To make and retain a copy of those computer data secured;
(c) To maintain the integrity of the relevant stored computer data;
(d) To conduct forensic analysis or examination of the computer
data storage medium; and
(e) To render inaccessible or remove those computer data in the
accessed computer or computer and communications network.
g. Destruction of Computer Data - Upon expiration of the periods, service
providers and law enforcement authorities, shall immediately and
completely destroy the computer data subject of a preservation and
examination.
h. Exclusionary Rule - Any evidence procured without a valid warrant or
beyond the authority of the same shall be inadmissible for any proceeding
before any court or tribunal
i. Noncompliance - prision correctional in its maximum period or a fine of
Php100,000.00 or both, for each and every noncompliance with an order
issued by law enforcement authorities.
VII. JURISDICTION
● Regional Trial Court - any violation of the provisions of this Act including any
violation committed by a Filipino national regardless of the place of
commission
VIII. COMPETENT AUTHORITIES
● Office of Cybercrime within DOJ - the central authority in all matters related
to international mutual assistance and extradition
● Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center - an inter-agency body
under the administrative supervision of the Office of the President, for
policy coordination among concerned agencies and for the formulation and
enforcement of the national cybersecurity plan.
a. Powers and Functions.
(a) To formulate a national cybersecurity plan and extend
immediate assistance for the suppression of real-time commission
of cybercrime offenses through a computer emergency response
team (CERT);
(b) To coordinate the preparation of appropriate and effective
measures to prevent and suppress cybercrime activities as provided
for in this Act;
(c) To monitor cybercrime cases being bandied by participating law
enforcement and prosecution agencies;
(d) To facilitate international cooperation on intelligence,
investigations, training and capacity building related to cybercrime
prevention, suppression and prosecution;
(e) To coordinate the support and participation of the business
sector, local government units and nongovernment organizations in
cybercrime prevention programs and other related projects;

(f) To recommend the enactment of appropriate laws, issuances,
measures and policies;
(g) To call upon any government agency to render assistance in the
accomplishment of the CICC’s mandated tasks and functions; and
(h) To perform all other matters related to cybercrime prevention
and suppression, including capacity building and such other
functions and duties as may be necessary for the proper
implementation of this Act.
CASE DOCTRINE
Disini v Sec of ● The following provisions of the Cybercrime
Justice Prevention Act were found by the Court to be
void and unconstitutional for the ff reasons:
a. On unsolicited commercial
communications - such are considered
commercial speech which is a legitimate
form of expression entitled to
protection.
b. On real-time collection of traffic data -
the terms used by the legislature lacks
restraint and gives law enforcement
agencies sweeping authority.
c. On restricting or blocking access to
computer data - precludes judicial
intervention as it disregards guidelines
established by the judiciary to determine
the validity of restrictions on speech.
This constitutes violation of the freedom
of speech and unlawful searches and
seizure.
● The following provisions were found void with
qualifications:
a. On aiding and abetting and attempt in
the commission of cybercrime -
unconstitutional with respect to libel.
It was found vague because of its
obvious chilling effect on the freedom
of expression. Only the original author
of the assailed statement must be held
liable. Other persons engaged
(commenters and sharers) merely give
knee-jerk sentiments.
b. On prosecution of libel under both RPC
and the assailed law - “libel” under the
RPC and “cyberlibel” under the
Cybercrime law have essentially the
same elements. To charge a person
with both would constitute double
jeopardy.
● Libel is unprotected speech. The Cybercrime
Prevention Law affirms that online defamation
constitutes "similar means" for committing libel
as defined in Article 353-355.
● Making the commission of crimes through the
internet a qualifying circumstance is justified as
through ICT, an offender evades identification
and is able to reach more victims and cause
greater harm
Vivares v STC ● WRIT OF HABEAS DATA: an independent and
summary remedy designed to protect the
image, privacy, honor, information, and
freedom of information of an individual, and to
provide a forum to enforce one’s right to the
truth and to informational privacy.
● An entity may only be held liable for privacy
invasion if it can be shown that the information
 involved was gathered by unlawful means.
II. Safe Spaces Act RA 11313 on Online-Gender Based Sexual Harassment
I. Declaration of Policy
II. Definition of Terms
III. Gender based online sexual harassment(Sec 12, Article II)
A. Gender-based online sexual harassment includes the following acts:
1. Use information and communications technology in terrorizing and
intimidating victims through physical, psychological, and emotional threats
u
2.Unwanted sexual misogynistic, transphobic, homophobic and sexist
remarks and comments online whether publicly or through direct and
private messages
3. Invasion of victim’s privacy through cyberstalking and incessant
messaging, uploading and sharing without the consent of the victim, any
form of media that contains photos, voice, or video with sexual content
4. Unauthorized recording and sharing of any of the victim’s photos, videos,
or any information online, impersonating identities of victims online or
posting lies about victims to harm their reputation, or filing, false abuse
reports to online platforms to silence victims.
B. Implementing Body - PNP Anti- Cybercrime Group (Sec13, Art. II)
1. PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group
● Receive complaints of genderbased online sexual
harassment
● Develop an online mechanism for reporting real-time
genderbased online sexual harassment acts
● Apprehend perpetrators
2. Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC) of the DICT
● Coordinate with the PNPACG to prepare appropriate and
effective measures to monitor and penalize gender-based
online sexual harassment.
C. Penalties(Sec. 14 Article II)
1. Prision correccional(medium) or a fine of not less than ₱100,000.00
but not more than ₱500,000.00, or both, at the discretion of the
court.
2. Perpetrator is a juridical person - license or franchise, automatically
deemed revoked.
- Officers shall be liable, including the editor or reporter in
the case of print media, and the station manager, editor and
broadcaster in the case of broadcast media.
3. Alien - deportation after serving sentence and payment of fines.
D. Exemption to acts constitutive and penalized as gender-based online
sexual harassment - authorized written orders of the court to use online
records or any copy thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or
trial of the crime.
Written order only issued upon:
 (d) If the perpetrator is a member of the uniformed services, such as the
1. Written application and the examination under oath or PNP and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and the act was
affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses may produce. perpetrated while the perpetrator was in uniform; and

2. Showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that (e) If the act takes place in the premises of a government agency offering
gender-based online sexual harassment has been committed or is frontline services to the public and the perpetrator is a government
about to be committed employee.

3.Evidence to be obtained is essential to the Note: Imprescriptible

conviction of any person for, or to the solution or prevention of
such crime.
RPC PROVISIONS ON LIBEL (Articles 353 to 362)
Note: Any record, photo or video, or copy thereof in violation of
I. Definition (Article 353) - a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a
shall not be admissible in evidence.
vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a
person, or to blacken the memory of someone who is dead.
E. Qualified(Article 3) - penalty next higher in degree will be applied in the
II. Elements
following cases:
A. Defamatory imputation
B. Publicity of the libelous matter
(a) If the act takes place in a common carrier or PUV, including, but not
C. Identity of the person libeled
limited to, jeepneys, taxis, tricycles, or app-based transport network vehicle
D. Malice on the part of the accused (Article 354)
services, where the perpetrator is the driver of the vehicle and the offended
1. GR: Every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious
party is a passenger;
(NOTE: Still malicious even if the imputation is true. Truth is
generally not a defense in libel cases.)
(b) If the offended party is a minor, a senior citizen, or a person with
(NOTE, further: Truth may only be a defense if coupled with
disability (PWD), or a breastfeeding mother nursing her child;
good intentions and justifiable motives)
2. XPN:
(c) If the offended party is diagnosed with a mental problem tending to
a. Private communication made in the performance of
impair consent;
any legal, moral, or social duty
 b. Fair and true reports of official proceedings
PRESUMED MALICE
Taken for granted in view of the
grossness of the imputation
Proof of malice not required
Presumed for private individuals
1. Private individual - action may also be filed in the RTC of the
ACTUAL MALICE province or city where he actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense
Requires positive desire or 2. Public officer, with office in Manila - RTC of Manila
intention to injure
3. Public officer, with office outside Manila - RTC of the
Proof of malice must be shown by province or city where he holds office at the time of the
extrinsic evidence commission of the offense.
(NOTE: In case of a civil action, it must be filed in the same court
Required of public officials or
public figures where the criminal action was filed, vice versa.)

III. Acts punishable

A. Libel by writing or similar means (Article 355)
B. Threatening to publish and offer to present libel for a compensation
(Article 356)
C. Publication of facts connected with the private life of another and
offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said person, made
in connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in the
narration of official proceedings (Article 357)
D. Oral defamation (Article 358)
E. Slander by deed (Article 359)
IV. Persons responsible (Article 360)
A. Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or
exhibition of any defamation
B. Author or editor of book or pamphlet; editor or business manager
of a newspaper, magazine, or serial publication
V. Venue and jurisdiction (Article 360)
A. GR: Action may be filed with the RTC of the province or city where
the libel was printed or first published
B. Other rules relating to the person libeled:
CASES DOCTRINE
Reno v ACLU ● OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE: A law violates the
First Amendment (particularly, on freedom of
speech) if it is so overly broad that it curtails
protected as well as unprotected speech. In this
case, the subject Act failed to define or limit
what constitutes as “indecent” or “patently
offensive” material.
● Because it may be made subject to “parental
control”, speech on the internet is entitled to
the same high degree of First Amendment
protection extended to print media.
New York Times ● The First Amendment provides that a public
v Sullivan official shall only recover damages for
defamation relating to his official conduct upon
proof that the act was made with actual malice.
● ACTUAL MALICE STANDARD: Accused has
knowledge that the defamatory statement was
false or made with reckless disregard of its
truthfulness.
Garrison v ● Anything that might touch on a public official’s
Louisiana fitness for office is relevant to his official
 conduct. This includes personal attributes such corporation or a non resident, a libeled public
as dishonesty, malfeasance, or improper official can still sue in the court of the locality
motivation. where he holds office, in order that the
prosecution of the action not interfere with the
Curtis v Butts ● Public figures are persons whose views and discharge of his official duties.
actions with respect to public issues and events
are often of as much concern to citizens as the
attitudes and behaviors of public officials.
● The rule laid out in New York TImes v Sullivan re:
actual malice likewise applies to defamation
actions by public figures.

Kunkle v ● When a person was not named or specifically

Cablenews identified in an article or publication, no claim
for damages based on defamation can arise.
● Identity of the libeled person is complied with
or shown where a third person recognized or
could identify the party vilified in the article.

Bonifacio v RTC ● Venue of libel cases where the complainant is a

Makati private individual is limited to only two places:
a. Where the complainant actually
resides at the time of the
commission of the offense
b. Where the alleged defamatory
article was printed and first
published

Time v Reyes ● MULTIPLE PUBLICATION RULE: Each

communication of written or printed matter was
a distinct and separate publication of a libel
contained therein, giving rise to a separate
cause of action.
● SINGLE PUBLICATION RULE: Any single
integrated publication is treated as a unit, giving
rise to only one cause of action.
● Even if the accused party is a foreign