In Reply To Oxymoron of Twitter

Dear KaPAB,

Lately may pinost ang taong to na akala ng ibang DDS ay dapat ng paniwalaan.

Idiscuss natin one by one ha.

1.

Yung number 1, totoo naman. Na may article nga ang Rappler noong May 2012. Eto yung part na sinasabi niya sa number 2.

Kung mababasa niyo Rappler is discussing an intelligence report. And the word “alleged”or “di umano” sa Pilipino.

Tapos yung isang source ay intelligence report from NBI at nabanggit din ang Philippine Star. Eto Yun.

Magtataka ka na sa report na to ay nireport si Mr. Keng as killer base sa testimony ni Ms. Go. Pero hindi sila nademanda no?

Tama ang number 3, na nagdemanda si Mr. Keng after 5 years na. Bakit kaya ganoon katagal bago nagdecide magdemanda? Kaso may problema, kasi inabot ng prescription period ang libel kasi one year lang dapat nagfile na at wala pang cybercrime law noong panahon yun. Kaya nga nadismiss ng NBI noong una eh.

4. Tama na nagkaroon ng update nong Feb. 2014. But let us not forget that it is the same article na nasa internet na since 2012 na wala pang Cybercrime law.

Consider this. Sa usapang libel part lang ng batas ha.

The cybercrime law only increases the penalty of normal libel. It is basically just libel through electronic means. Basically you’re just using the elements of libel + online publication.

So in the prosecution for libel, the single “act” is the publication of the libelous article. This is when the offender commits an overt act of libel. And alam natin na ang tinutukoy na alleged libelous acts ay napublish where wala pang Cybercrime law.

 

In normal libel cases, the date of the publication of a newspaper article is the date the crime is committed.

If you use the theory of the prosecution, na continuing crime, as long as you do not throw away an old libelous newspaper article, then you can still prosecute for libel under the theory that it is a continuing crime, ie, the article is still “published.”

If applied to a newspaper then there would be no way to determine the prescriptive period because the newspaper article is still “published.” It doesn’t make sense. Obviously the intent is make it an offense pegged at a definite point in time. So bakit pa tayo naglagay ng prescriptive period sa batas, aber?

Basahin niyo ang Disini case where Cyberlaw was discussed. The Supreme Court never said that a libelous post is a continuing crime, but referred to these as specific instances not divorced from a definite date and time of the Commission of the offense.

Yung sinabi niya na nag issue ang judge ng warrant of arrest ng Feb 12. Tama Yun.

 

Ngayon, ang tanong bakit naserve ang warrant February 13 na at 5PM talaga kung saan close na ang mga court para sana makapiyansa ang akusado?

Unlike Oxymoron, Sasot and other DDS, Karen Davila, Inday Varona Christiane Amanpour and other member of the media ay mga mulat na journalist at nakikita nila ang panggigipit ng gobyerno ni Duterte sa kalayaan ng pamamahayag.

Eto ang totoo. Magbasa.

Hindi Tamad Magbasa,

PAB

 

Facebook Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *