Ra 9995

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009
R.A. No. 9995
Republic Act No. 9995 AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Presented by: Carpio, Reina Geeline R. Ernacio, Tamara Bianca C. Maceda, Mary Joan Dorothy Joy B. Palanca, Feligene Rae A.
Presented to: Judge Oscar Pimentel 17, January 2013
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS Faculty of Civil Law 2B SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
Page 1
The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 Republic of the Philippines CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES Metro Manila Fourteenth Congress Third Regular Session
R.A. No. 9995
Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-seventh day of July, two thousand nine. Republic Act No. 9995 AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representative of the Philippines in Congress assembled: Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009". Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State values the dignity and privacy of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. Toward this end, the State shall penalize acts that would destroy the honor, dignity and integrity of a person. Section 3. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Act, the term: (a) "Broadcast" means to make public, by any means, a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons.
Page 2
R.A. No. 9995
(b) "Capture" with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast. (c) "Female breast" means any portion of the female breast. (d) "Photo or video voyeurism" means the act of taking photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or of capturing an image of the private area of a person or persons without the latter's consent, under circumstances in which such person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy, or the act of selling, copying, reproducing, broadcasting, sharing, showing or exhibiting the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and similar means or device without the written consent of the person/s involved, notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage of same was given by such person's. (e) "Private area of a person" means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast of an individual. (f) "Under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy" means believe that he/she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image or a private area of the person was being captured; or circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the person would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place. Section 4. Prohibited Acts. - It is hereby prohibited and declared unlawful for any person:
Page 3
R.A. No. 9995
(a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or to capture an image of the private area of a person/s such as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast without the consent of the person/s involved and under circumstances in which the person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy; (b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or reproduced, such photo or video or recording of sexual act or any similar activity with or without consideration; (c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed, such photo or video or recording of sexual act, whether it be the original copy or reproduction thereof; or (d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print or broadcast media, or show or exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and other similar means or device. The prohibition under paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) shall apply notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage of the same was given by such person/s. Any person who violates this provision shall be liable for photo or video voyeurism as defined herein. Section 5. Penalties. - The penalty of imprisonment of not less that three (3) years but not more than seven (7) years and a fine of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), or both, at the discretion of the court shall be imposed upon any person found guilty of violating Section 4 of this Act.
Page 4
R.A. No. 9995
If the violator is a juridical person, its license or franchise shall be automatically be deemed revoked and the persons liable shall be the officers thereof including the editor and reporter in the case of print media, and the station manager, editor and broadcaster in the case of a broadcast media. If the offender is a public officer or employee, or a professional, he/she shall be administratively liable. If the offender is an alien, he/she shall be subject to deportation proceedings after serving his/her sentence and payment of fines. Section 6. Exemption. - Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or punishable for any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the court, to use the record or any copy thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of the crime of photo or video voyeurism: Provided, That such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he/she may produce, and upon showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that photo or video voyeurism has been committed or is about to be committed, and that the evidence to be obtained is essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution or prevention of such, crime. Section 7. Inadmissibility of Evidence. - Any record, photo or video, or copy thereof, obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation. Section 8. Separability Clause. - If any provision or part hereof is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions not affected thereby shall remain valid and subsisting.
Page 5
R.A. No. 9995
Section 9. Repealing Clause. - Any law, presidential decree or issuance, executive order, letter of instruction , administrative order, rule or regulation contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act is hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly. Section 10. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in the Official Gazette or in two(2) newspapers of general circulation. Approved
(Sgd.) PROSPERO C. NOGRALES Speaker of the House of Representatives
(Sgd.) JUAN PONCE ENRILE President of the Senate
This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2357 and House Bill No. 6571 was finally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on December 1, 2009 and November 18, 2009, respectively.
(Sgd.) MARILYN B. BARUA-YAP Secretary General House of Represenatives
(Sgd.) EMMA LIRIO-REYES Secretary of Senate
Approved: FEB 15, 2010 (Sgd.) GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO President of the Philippines
Page 6
R.A. No. 9995
This primer is taken from the website of the law firm of Jaromay, Laurente and Pamaos (jlp-law.com) and is written and published therein by Atty. Fred Bertulfo Pamaos, a full partner of said law firm and a distinguished graduate of the U.P. College of Law. It is quoted in its entirety and is intended purely for the information and enlightenment of all members of this forum. Theres an alarming rise in reported complaints of nude photos, mostly of women, being posted without the consent of the subjects in social networking sites such as facebook. Theres also a proliferation of sex scandals and sex videos. One of the usual complaints filed against the offenders is under Republic Act No. 9995, also known as the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009. Heres a primer on this anti -voyeurism law. What is the definition of photo or video voyeurism? It is the act of taking photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or of capturing an image of the private area of a person or persons without the latters consent, under circumstances in which such person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy, or the act of selling, copying, reproducing, broadcasting, sharing, showing or exhibiting the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and similar means or device without the written consent of the person/s involved, notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage of same was given by such persons. Thats a very long definition. Please enumerate the specific acts prohibited and punished under the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009. 1. To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or to capture an image of the private area of a person/s such as the
Page 7
R.A. No. 9995
naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast without the consent of the person/s involved and under circumstances in which the person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy. 2. To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or reproduced, such photo or video or recording of sexual act or any similar activity with or without consideration. It is immaterial if consent to record or take photo or video coverage of the same was given by such person/s. 3. To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed, such photo or video or recording of sexual act, whether it be the original copy or reproduction thereof. It is immaterial if consent to record or take photo or video coverage of the same was given by such person/s. 4. To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print or broadcast media, or show or exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and other similar means or device. It is immaterial if consent to record or take photo or video coverage of the same was given by such person/s. The first act speaks of circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, what does this mean? It means circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that: 1. He/she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image or a private area of the person was being captured; or 2. A private area of the person would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.
Page 8
R.A. No. 9995
What do you mean by private area of a person? It means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast of an individual. If theres an undergarment (e.g., brief or panty) covering the private parts, is this still covered by the law? Yes. Based on the definition above, the genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast of an individual may be naked or clad with undergarment. What is the meaning of capture? With respect to an image, it means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast. What if the other person was aware of and consented to the taking of the photograph? Even if there was consent to the taking of the photo, if there is no consent to the sharing or exhibition, then the offending party would still be liable. What do you mean by broadcast? Broadcast means to make public, by any means, a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons.
Page 9
R.A. No. 9995
What if the photo shows the breasts of a man, is this covered by the law? No. The law only covers female breasts. If the photo shows only the side of a female breast, without the nipple, is this still covered by the law? Yes. The term female breast includes any portion of the female breast. What is the penalty for committing any of the prohibited acts? The court has the discretion to impose: 1. Imprisonment of not less than three (3) years but not more than seven (7) years; or 2. A fine of not less than P100,000 but not more than P500,000; or 3. Both. Are these materials admissible in evidence? As a general rule, NO. The record, photo or video, or copy thereof, obtained or secured by any person in violation of this law shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation. However, any peace officer may secure an order of the court to use the record or any copy thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of the crime of photo or video voyeurism. The written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he/she may produce, and upon showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that photo or video voyeurism has been committed or is about to be committed,
Page 10
R.A. No. 9995
and that the evidence to be obtained is essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution or prevention of such, crime.
SOURCE: COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 2010 REPORT The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 was passed as a solution to prevent the proliferation of scandals the most notable of which is the one which involved Dr. Hayden Kho, Dr. Maricar Reyes as well as actress Katrina Halili. The law itself provides that its main objective is to penalize acts that will destroy the honor, integrity and dignity of a person. If you find yourself being a victim of perverts who took a photo or video of your private part or your intercourse, make sure to read the provision of this law because this will be your main weapon against these scums of the society. The provisions of the AntiPhoto and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 are simplified below so that it may be easily understood, thus: What acts are prohibited under the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009? 1. To: take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or an image of the private area of a person/s such as the naked or the undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breasts when without the consent of person/s involved and under circumstances in which the person/s has/have reasonable expectation of privacy
Page 11
R.A. No. 9995
2. To: copy or reproduce, or cause to be copied or reproduced, such photo or video or recording of sexual act, whether it be: 3. To: sell or distribute, or cause to be copied or reproduced, such photo or video or recording of sexual act, whether it be: 4. To: publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast whether in: - print, or - broadcast media show or exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or any similar activity through: - VCD/DVD - Internet - Cellular phones - Other similar means and devices the original copy or reproduction thereof the original copy or reproduction thereof
Page 12
R.A. No. 9995
Will a person be held liable in case the victim gave his/her consent to record or take photo or video coverage? The prohibitions shall apply notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage was given. What are the penalties for violation of the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009? At the discretion of the Court, it may impose upon any person found violating the said law the following penalties: If the offender is a natural person Imprisonment of not less than three (3) years but not more than seven (7) years, and a fine of not less than Php100,000.00 but not more than Php500,000.00, or both imprisonment and fine its license or franchise shall be automatically deemed revoked, and the persons liable shall be the officers, including: he/shall shall be administratively liable he/she shall be subject to deportation proceedings after serving his/her sentence and payment of fines
If the offender is a juridical person:
If the offender is a public officer or employee or a professional: If the offender is an alien:
Page 13
R.A. No. 9995
What are the exemptions to this law? A peace officer who is authorized by written order of the court, to use the record or any copy thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of the crime of photo or video voyeurism. Provided the following conditions are met; 1. The written order shall only be granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he/she may produce, and 2. Upon showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that photo or video voyeurism has been committed or is about to be committed, and 3. The evidence to be obtained is essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution or prevention of such crime.
Page 14
R.A. No. 9995
SOURCE : DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INVESTIGATION OFFICE 87% of Filipino Internet users have been victims of cybercrimesDOJ MANILA, Philippines Almost 9 out of 10 Filipino Internet users have been victimized by cybercrime or a malicious activity on the Internet at one time or another, the Department of Justice (DOJ) primer on facts and trends about cybercrimes committed in the country, said on Tuesday. The primer on Philippine cybercrime has been prepared by the DOJ as part of its advocacy program to prevent abuses in cyberspace as the legality of the new law against cybercrime is being deliberated in the Supreme Court. In October 2012, the implementation of the new Cyber-crime Prevention Act of 2012 was suspended by the high tribunal for four months until Feb.6 following 15 petitions seeking for the law to be declared unconstitutional wholly or partially. The high court is set to hear on Jan.15 oral arguments on the law that became controversial because of its provisions that included the criminalization of online libel. In the three-page primer presented in a question and answer format, the DOJ said that cybercrime has become one of the fastest growing crimes globally. In the Philippines, the primer quoted a 2010 report of the security software firm Symantec that as many as 87 percent of Filipino internet users (nearly nine out of 10) were identified as victims of crimes and malicious activities committed online. These included being victimized in activities such as malware (virus and Trojan) invasion; online or phishing scams; sexual predation; and services in social networking site like Facebook and Twitter.
Page 15
R.A. No. 9995
From 2003 to 2012, the Anti-Transnational Crime Division (ATCD) of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) of the Philippine National Police (PNP) looked into 2,778 referred cases of computer crimes from government agencies and private individuals nationwide. The primer defined cybercrime as a crime committed with or through the use of information and communication technologies such as radio, television, cellular phone, computer and network, and other communication devic e or application. Quoting the 2001 Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, the primer said there were four types of cybercrime offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data systems; computer-related offenses; content-related offenses and offenses related to infringements of copyright and related rights. The primer also noted that the first cybercrime case in the country was the controversial case involving Onel de Guzman who in 2000 released the I Love You virus. The case filed against De Guzman was dismissed at the first stage because there was no law punishing the deed as of that time in May 2000 in the Philippines, it said. The primer also said that two cybercriminals had been convicted for hacking under Republic Act no. 8792 or the Electronic Commerce Act or the E-Commerce Act. The first conviction involved a person caught hacking the government portal gov.ph and other government websites while the other involved a person who used the Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) call center provider Sitel Philippines Corporation to illegally secure credit card information from the companys sister firm, Sitel USA.
Page 16
R.A. No. 9995
Since the new law against cybercrime has been suspended, the government is dealing with cybercrime-related cases using existing laws such as the E-Commerce Act, RA 9995 or the Anti-Photo and Voyeurism Act of 2009, RA 9725 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, RA 9208 or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, RA 8484 or the Access Device Regulation Act of 1998 and RA 4200 or the Anti-Wire Tapping Law.
SOURCE : LAWYERS FORUM BLOG QUESTION: What is the territorial jurisdiction of this law? Where do you file this case if the suspect used email to reproduce and spread the nude pictures of the victim? ANSWER: Atty. Allan, the law is silent regarding the territorial jurisdiction unlike in Art. 360 of the RPC which is very clear in stating the rule regarding the territorial jurisdiction. In this case, we will apply the basic rule that in criminal actions, the place where the criminal offense was committed determines the venue. Thus if the offender used his computer in Quezon City to spread the pictures, you have to file the complaint in QC, but if he used a computer in an internet cafe in Makati City, you have to file it in Makati because that is where the offense was committed.
Page 17
R.A. No. 9995
SOURCE : PHILIPPINE STAR; BAHALA SI TULFO Ni Ben Tulfo Updated February 2, 2011 - 12:00am SA kauna-unahang pagkakataon, masusubukan ang pangil ng bagong batas na R.A. 9995 (Anti-photo and video Voyeurism Act of 2009). Isang Dean ng isang pribadong paaralan sa kolehiyo sa Maynila ang unang masasampulan ng batas na ito matapos magtagumpay ang entrapment operation sa suspek kahapon ng hapon. Kasama ang National Capital Region Police Office-Regional Special Task Group (NCRPO-RSTG) at BITAG, naisagawa ang operasyon sa isang kilalang motel sa Maynila. Nagsimula ang lahat sa alok ng Dean na tinawag na Kuwatro o Kuwarto. Pag -enroll pa lamang daw ng biktima, inalok na siya ng suspek na kung gusto nitong pumasa sa lahat ng kanyang subject, sumunod lamang daw siya sa lahat ng gusto ng Dean. Sa takot na hindi makapagtapos ng pag-aaral, nagpailalim ang biktima sa suspek. At ng magdesisyong bumitaw ang biktima sa Dean, dito nagsimula ang kanyang kalbaryo. Ibinalandra ng Dean ang mga larawang hubad at malalaswang litrato ng biktima sa facebook na kuha ng kaniyang pakikipagtalik sa Dean. Bukod dito, lahat ng kaibigan ng biktima, pinadalhan ng kopya ng nasabing mga litrato. Sa naidokumentong pag-uusap sa cell phone ng suspek sa biktima, gusto nitong makipagsiping sa biktima ng paulit-ulit. Kung hindi raw susunod ang biktima sa kaniyang kagustuhan, nagbanta itong ilalabas ang mga natitira pang video at larawan ng kanilang pagtatalik.
Page 18
R.A. No. 9995
Ayon sa orihinal na author ng nabanggit na batas ang dating Cyberboso Bill, pasok ang kasong ito ng biktima sa paglabag sa R.A. 9995 dahil sa pagdodokumento at pagpapakalat nito ng malalaswang larawan ng biktima ng labag sa kaniyang kalooban. Dito na ikinasa ng BITAG ang aming patibong. Mismong biktima ang magiging pain upang ma-Bitag ang suspek. Walang kahirap-hirap, dahil sa kahayukan, hubot-hubad pa itong naaktuhan ng BITAG at mga pulis ng NCRPO-RSTG sa loob ng motel na pinagdalhan nito sa biktima. Dito, patung-patong na kaso ang isinampa ng biktima laban sa suspek. Ang mga ito ay sexual harrassment, violation of R.A. 9262 (Violence Against Women) at R.A 9995 (AntiVoyeurism Act). Abangan ngayong Sabado sa BITAG ang buong detalye.
Page 19
R.A. No. 9995
Republic Act No. 9995 Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act Posted by lexforiphilippines on March 2, 2010 To all Hayden Kho wannabes and fans, Republic Act No. 9995, otherwise known as the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 was signed into law on 15 February 2010. Under the new law, a person is prohibited: (a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or to capture an image of the private area of a person/s such as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast without the consent of the person/s involved and under circumstances in which the person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy; (b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or reproduced, such photo or video or recording of sexual act or any similar activity, with or without consideration, notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage of the same was given by such person/s; (c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed, such photo or video or recording of sexual act, whether it be the original copy or reproduction thereof, notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage of the same was given by such person/s; or (d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print or broadcast media, or show or exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and other
Page 20
R.A. No. 9995
similar means or device, notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage of the same was given by such person/s. Those found guilty of committing any of said prohibited acts will be penalized with imprisonment of not less than 3 years but not more than seven 7 years and a fine of not less than P100,000.00 but not more than P500,000.00, or both, at the courts discretion. If the violator is a juridical person, its license or franchise will be automatically deemed revoked and the persons liable will be the officers, including the editor and reporter in the case of print media, and the station manager, editor and broadcaster in the case of a broadcast media. If the offender is a public officer or employee, or a professional, he/she will be administratively liable. If the offender is an alien, he/she will be subject to deportation proceedings after serving his/her sentence and payment of fines. Any photo or video, or any copy of such photo or video, obtained in violation of the law, will not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation. A peace officer may use such photo or video or any copy of such photo or video as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of the crime of photo or video voyeurism, but only when so authorized by a written order of the court. Such written order will be issued only upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he/she may produce, and upon showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that photo or video voyeurism has been committed or is about to be committed, and that the evidence to be obtained is essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution or prevention of such crime.
Page 21
R.A. No. 9995
SOURCE : LOCAL NEWS IN DAVAO CITY Wednesday, June 20, 2012 MAN WITHDRAWS NOT GUILTY PLEA, ADMITS VOYEURISM RAP A MAN accused of taking a video footage inside a women's restroom of a hotel in June 2011 withdrew his not guilty plea and admitted the charges filed against him. Mark Maglacion Romero, through Public Attorney's Office lawyer Rudy Alonzo, dropped his earlier plea and entered a guilty plea "provided that the penalty shall be within the range where the accused may apply for probation." Romero was charged with violation of Republic Act (RA) 9995, otherwise known as Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009, after Prosecutor Gaye Magdagasang found probable cause to hold him for court trial. He took a video footage of an employee of Nestl Philippines Inc. while the latter was inside the comfort room. Under the law, anyone who violates RA 9995 shall be sentenced three to five years of imprisonment. However, Romero filed his application for probation on May 9. The court granted it given due course to process it before the Parole and Probation Administration (PPA). Records from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 17, where the case was raffled off, showed that the complainant was sent by the company to be a speaker in a conference held at a city hotel on June 20-21.
Page 22
R.A. No. 9995
In an affidavit, the complainant said the incident happened inside the hotel's ladies restroom around 11:20 a.m. of June 21. She was inside the first cubicle when she noticed that the rattan garbage bin was moving. She became suspicious, so she checked on the bin and saw a cellular phone with its camera focused on her. The complainant sought for help, prompting the respondent to come out from the second cubicle of the ladies' comfort room. The respondent asked for forgiveness and admitted his wrongful act, thus the filing of the case. (ANC Report)
Page 23
R.A. No. 9995
SOURCE : EDITORIAL LOCAL PUBLICATION IN CEBU SUNSTAR Sunday, September 16, 2012 TECHNOLOGY has created social revolutions that require the rewriting of etiquette, as set down by Emily Post or even the more sexually liberated Helen Gurley Brown. According to Post, regarded as the etiquette expert since the early 1900s, in a broken engagement, the woman should take the higher road and return her engagement ring to the man unless the ring is an heirloom from her family. Breaking up has become messy these days. Cheaper photo and video technology and the relaxation of sexual taboos have given rise to the practice among couples of taking and sharing images of explicit or sensitive nature. Indiscretions preserved in digital file become converted from amatory keepsakes to arsenals of malice when relationships fall apart. As reported by Sun.Star Cebus Kevin A. Lagunda last Sept. 10, a man who circulated nude photos of his lover was charged by the Cebu City Prosecutors Office for violation of Republic Act (RA) 9995, or the Anti -Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009, and RA 9262, or the Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. Digital indiscretions Instead of taking the higher road and returning a memory card containing files of intimate images, John e-mailed these photos to associates of Cindy, his former girlfriend, after she resisted his attempt to blackmail her.
Page 24
R.A. No. 9995
RA 9995 addresses the rights of persons who are compromised when photos or video images are taken or broadcasted that show their naked or undergarment -clad private areas or their performance or participation in the sexual act or similar activities. Many of the recent sex scandals involve photo and video voyeurism of unwary victims, usually women, with the images ending up posted and reposted on the Internet or sold to the pirated disc market. However, RA 9995 still applies even when the subjects of the photos or videos gave their consent to take the photos or record the coverage. RA 9995 prohibits four specific acts: taking photo or video coverage of person or persons in the sexual act or their private areas; copying or reproducing such images with or without considerations; selling or distributing the images; and publishing in print, broadcasting, showing or exhibiting the recordings through VCD/CD, Internet, cellular phones and other devices. Online Jungle While the law repairs injured rights, the damage on reputation argues for greater discretion in conducting oneself before any recording device, especially the human eyes that are prone to malice. The anecdote behind one sex scandal began with a busted laptop. When the owner had this repaired, the technician succeeded and recovered all the files, which included images showing the laptop owner cavorting with another prominent member of society. The images were reproduced and sold well in the underground market.
Page 25
R.A. No. 9995
Lovers should keep in mind that not only can passion wane and curdle, there are all kinds of predators lurking in the Internet, where anyone and anything can be turned into a commodity or even shared for free. The thread of comments to the Sun Star Cebu article posted on www.sunstar.com.ph reveals that John may be getting his comeuppance for breaking the classic etiquette of dont kiss and tell, but Cindys privacy and dignity remain open game in the jungles of the Net.
Page 26
R.A. No. 9995
SOURCE : PHILIPPINE LAWS FOR EVERYONE; LAWYERS FORUM ANTI-PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM ACT What is it about? The law makes it a crime to take photos of a naked person without his or her consent, and also to record a video of people having sex without their consent. Important Things to remember: 1. Photo or Video Voyeurism means: a. the act of taking a photo or video of a person/s performing a sexual act or any similar activity without the latter's consent, under circumstances where such person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy; b. capturing an image of the private area of a person/s without the latter's consent, under circumstances where such person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy; or c. the act of selling, copying, reproducing, broadcasting, sharing, showing or exhibiting the photo or video of such sexual act or similar activity through DVD, the internet, cellphones and similar means or devices without the written consent of the person/s involved, even though consent to record or take the photo or video of the same was initially given.
Page 27
R.A. No. 9995
2. A person is guilty of Photo or Video Voyeurism when there is: a. taking a photo or video of a person/s performing a sexual act or any similar activity or capturing an image of the private area of a person/s such as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area (?), buttocks or female breast without the consent of the person/s involved and under circumstances in which the person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy. b. copying or reproducing such photo or video of a sexual act or any similar activity for a fee or for free, even though consent to record was given initially. c. selling or distributing such photo or video of a sexual act, whether it be the original or a copy, even though consent to record was given initially. d. publishing or broadcasting, whether in print or broadcast media of such sexual act, even though consent to record was given initially. e. showing or exhibiting the photo or video of such sexual act through DVD, internet, cellphones and other similar means or device, even though consent to record was given initially. 3. If a person is found guilty of Photo or Video Voyeurism, he'll be looking at jail time of up to 7 years and a fine costing as much as P500,000.00.
Page 28
R.A. No. 9995
SOURCE: MALACANANG; OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Malacanang says inter-agency body will start working on implementing rules and regulations of Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 September 19, 2012 An inter-agency body will start working on the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of the newly enacted Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 that intends to curb cybercrime in the Philippines, a Palace official said on Wednesday. Presidential Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda said in a regular press briefing in Malacanang on Wednesday that the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the Information and Communications Technology Office under the Department of Science and Technology (ICTO-DOST) are tasked to work on the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 IRR. President Benigno S. Aquino III signed on September 12 Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Punishable acts under the new law include offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data system, illegal access, illegal interception, data interference, system interference, and misuse of devices. Also included are computer-related offenses such as forgery, fraud, and identity theft that are rampant in the Internet. Also punishable under the new law are content-related offenses like cybersex, and child pornography. The law also punishes unsolicited commercial communications or cyber squatting, the acquisition of a persons domain na me for profit or destroy reputations.
Page 29
R.A. No. 9995
Existing Philippine laws punishing Internet crimes are Republic Act (RA) 9995 (Anti-Photo and Voyeurism Act of 2009); RA 9775 (Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009); and RA 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003).
Page 30
R.A. No. 9995
SOURCE: PHILIPPINE STAR Prosecutor dismisses Raps vs STC, parents By Mylen P. Manto/JPM (The Freeman) | Updated December 21, 2012 - 12:00am CEBU, Philippines - The St. Theresas College lost in their complaint against the parents, and the parents also lost their complaint against the school. For lack of probable cause, the Office of the Cebu City Prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaints filed by the parents of the minors who were barred from attending their graduation rites last March against the STC High School Department. Meanwhile, the panel of prosecutors dismissed the child abuse filed by the STC against the parents of the minors also for lack of probable cause. The panel of prosecutors led by Prosecutor Rogelio del Prado Jr. dismissed the complaint for grave oral defamation in relation to Republic Act 7610 or child abuse and violation of RA 9995 or Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act. After going over the evidence on record, the undersigned panel finds that complainants failed to point out in their affidavit-compliant the particular respondents who uttered the alleged defamatory remarks or statements complained of, the joint resolution reads. The panel added that the charge for a violation of RA 9995 failed after there was no evidence presented by the complainant that the photographs subject of the case was among those photographs which RA 9995 prohibits from copying or reproducing.
Page 31
R.A. No. 9995
Under RA 9995 person is prohibited to take photos or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or to capture an image of the private area of a person who is naked or in undergarment without consent. The minor said she and other four students were qualified to graduate but were unjustly prohibited from attending their graduation rites due to a sanction for failure to obey school regulations. She added that the court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) directing the school to let them attend the commencement exercises but the school defied the order. The same panel of prosecutors dismissed the child abuse filed by the STC against the parents of the minors for lack of probable cause. The STC filed a complaint after the parents failed to supervise their children that constitute child abuse. The respondents, parents of the students allegedly caused and encouraged their minor children to lead an immoral and dissolute life by committing neglect and encouragement of acts detrimental to the development of their children under Section 10(a) of RA 7610, the complaint reads. The school officials said the acts of the minors -drinking hard liquor in public places, displaying private parts of their bodies and roaming around showing undergarments shows lack of parental control and supervision that leads their childre n to lead immoral and dissolute lives. In their joint-resolution, the panel of prosecutors said the allegation of the school was not clear.
Page 32
R.A. No. 9995
There is no clear showing that the children involved herein were coerced induced, enticed and forced to commit those actuations by their parents. There is no proof or evidence to convince the panel that the respondents parents directly involved themselves in allowing their children to commit such juvenile and unguided acts nor is there showing that they indeed encourage the same, the resolution reads. The minors were not allowed to attend their graduation rites due to a school violation for posting obscene photos in their Facebook accounts.
Page 33
R.A. No. 9995
SOURCE: FILIPINO JOURNAL Sen. Bong Revilla wants NBI probe on Janelle-Ramgen video controversy A video that shows the late Ramgen Revilla and girlfriend Janelle Manahan sharing intimate moments while inside a bathroom made the rounds on Twitter and Facebook social networking sites just before New Year. In a press release, Sen. Bong Revilla Jr. denounced the leakage of the video and has called upon the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to conduct an investigation and arrest the culprits in violation of the Anti-Voyeurism Law of 2009 (RA 9995). Section 4 of RA 9995 prohibits taking photos or recording videos of a person engaged in sexual acts or the like. Revilla, who co-authored the said law, made it clear that every person who downloads, copies and sends the video is guilty of committing the offense, regardless if they were the original uploaders. Lawyer Argee Guevarra, one of Manahans counsel, has already confirmed that his client was indeed the woman in the video. He also accused Ramgens family of uploading the video and blackmailing Janelle. Atty. Luke Espiritu, Guevarras partner, asserted that the Bautista siblings have the motive because they want to harass Janelle and discourage her from testifying. He said their camp is planning to file a case of violation of the Anti-Voyeurism Act of 2009 against Ramgens siblings and will ask the court to subpoena pertinent records relating to telecom and internet networks to determine the source of the sex video.
Page 34
R.A. No. 9995
Meanwhile, Genelyn Magsaysay has rebuffed the allegation that someone from her family uploaded the malicious video. Magsaysay claimed that they no longer have access to Ramgens electronic gadgets since his death in October. No longer can voyeurs and peeping toms with a penchant for recording what they see claim that no law prohibits their activities. Republic Act No. 9995 is AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PHOTO AND VIDEO VOYEURISM, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (July 2009). With the prevalence of cellphone and other small cameras, Congress has seen fit to punish those who violate the privacy of others through these means. The Prohibited Acts are as follows: (a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or to capture an image of the private area of a person/s such as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public (sic) area, buttocks or female breast without the consent of the person/s involved and under circumstances in which the person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy; (b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or reproduced, such photo or video or recording of sexual act or any similar activity with or without consideration; (c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed, such photo or video or recording of sexual act, whether it be the original copy or reproduction thereof; or (d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print or broadcast media, or show or exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such
Page 35
R.A. No. 9995
sexual act or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and other similar means or device. The prohibition under paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) shall apply notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage of the same was given by such person/s. Any person who violates this provision shall be liable for photo or video voyeurism as defined herein. (Section 4) [Emphasis supplied] The act of taking video or photo coverage of sexual acts and of private parts without consent has been made a crime. consented to the coverage: (d) "Photo or video voyeurism" means the act of taking photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or of capturing an image of the private area of a person or persons without the latter's consent, under circumstances in which such person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy, or the act of selling, copying, reproducing, broadcasting, sharing, showing or exhibiting the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and similar means or device without the written consent of the person/s involved, notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage of same was given by such person/s.(Section 3, Definition of Terms) [Emphasis supplied] Consent to the coverage and written consent to its further distribution or showing is required in order to stay clear of this law. But it is another matter whether consent can be a defense to charges of pornography or indecency. This would be covered by the Revised Penal Code, specifically ARTICLE 201 which covers Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions, and indecent shows.
So is copying, selling, distributing, publishing or
broadcasting the same. And this is still punishable even if the ostensible victim has
Page 36
R.A. No. 9995
There is a reasonable expectation of privacy where a person believes that he/she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image or a private area of the person was being captured; or circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the person would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place (Section 3 (f)). Hence, it doesnt matter whether you go naked in a motel, in your backyard or even a secluded spot in a public area, you may be covered (pun intended) by the law. The paparazzi will have to behave accordingly . A violator faces the penalty of imprisonment of not less than three (3) years but not more than seven (7) years and a fine of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), or both, at the discretion of the court xxx. If the violator is a juridical person, its license or franchise shall be automatically be deemed revoked and the persons liable shall be the officers thereof including the editor and reporter in the case of print media, and the station manager, editor and broadcaster in the case of a broadcast media. If the offender is a public officer or employee, or a professional, he/she shall be administratively liable. If the offender is an alien, he/she shall be subject to deportation proceedings after serving his/her sentence and payment of fines. (Section 5) The only exception is given to peace officers authorized by a written order of the court, to use the record or any copy thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of the crime of photo or video voyeurism: Provided, That such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he/she may produce, and upon showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that photo or video voyeurism has been committed or is about to be committed, and that the evidence to be obtained is essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution or prevention of such, crime (Section 6).
Page 37
R.A. No. 9995
Any record, photo or video in violation of the foregoing shall be inadmissible in evidence in any proceeding (Section 7). The law defines the private area of a person to mean the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public (sic) area, buttocks or female breast of an individual. With respect to breasts, it includes any portion of the female breast. It would be interesting to see whether wardrobe malfunctions would be covered by this law. All the elements would still be present, since there would be video coverage of private parts without consent, albeit accidental, and the broadcast of the same. The law speaks of any portion of the female breast. Would a televised shot of a starlets cleavage and nothing more be punishable under the law? It would seem so and this renders the statute vulnerable to Constitutional attack for being vague or too broad. The actual application of this law should not take long in coming. There has been one incident where a man was able to record through his cellphone the intimate acts of a couple in a Manila malls comfort room. He thereafter sought ransom in exchange for not posting the video on the net. And a gym instructor was recently apprehended for filming upskirt videos in a Quezon City supermarket using his mobile phone. It looks like you may stop and look, provided you dont record anything for posterity or notoriety, as the case may be, if you have no wish to run afoul of this law. In fine, this Act says that whatever you get to see is for your eyes only, no one elses. Yet there is still no escape as you may still be charged with the offense of unjust vexation under the Revised Penal Code, the standard complaint against peeping toms.
Source: http://thelegallyinclined.blogspot.com/2011/05/for-your-eyes-only-anti-photo-and-video.html
Page 38
R.A. No. 9995
Students Facebook scandal a test case for voyeurism law By Lira Dalangin-Fernandez INQUIRER.net First Posted 15:56:00 03/03/2011 MANILA, Philippines The Facebook controversy between a 26-year-old student and a school dean is being eyed as a test case to see how the newly enacted cyberboso law or the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 can enforce its teeth on voyeurs. Buhay partylist Representative Irwin Tieng, the main author of Republic Act 9995, said his group is now helping the student, known only as Annika, in her legal case against Alexander Rible, a dean in a Metro Manila school, who posted in the social networking site Facebook photos of her in the nude and other compromising poses. This is a test case and we hope we can be successful in prosecuting the erring person using the law, Tieng said at the Serye news forum in Quezon City. Tieng came to the venue of the news forum with the victim and her lawyer, Freidrick Lu, but the victim was did not face the media. Lu said the relationship between Annika and Rible existed for not less than six months while the former was still enrolled in the school. He said Rible became vindictive when Annika broke off from the relationship. To retaliate, Rible created a Facebook account using the name of Annikas commonlaw husband and posted her photos there for public viewing. The account has been taken down, but screen grabs were taken that still preserved the photographs.
Page 39
R.A. No. 9995
You can really see the character of the person who created the account. He even invited the victims friends in the account so they can access to her photos, Lu said. Rible is now facing charges for violating Section 4-a of RA 9995, which prohibits taking photos or video of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar act and copying, reproducing, publishing and distributing them. Lu said they have also filed rape charges against Rible and violation of Anti-Sexual Harassment Act (RA 7877) and Anti-Violation of Women and Children Act (RA 9262). Rible was freed after posting a P7,000 bail bond. RA 9995 was enacted into law last year to put a stop to voyeurism using the internet. A number of scandals have been publicized in the past, including the sex video between sexy actress Kathrina Halili and Dr. Hayden Kho. A penalty of not less than three years of imprisonment and fine of not less than P100,000 will be meted to those found guilty of violating the law.
Page 40
R.A. No. 9995
General Comments on Ramgen Revilla and Janelle Manahan Scandal Section 4.d prohibits anyone from showing or exhibiting the photo or video coverage or recordings of (sexual acts) or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, Internet, cellular phones, and other similar means or device. These prohibitions apply even if there is consent from the persons in the video. Curiously, the bill does not prohibit individuals from taking videos of themselves while having sex as long as it remains private (see Section 3.d and 4.a and b). (This particular video was taken by Ramgen using a handheld-camera.) Technically, the mere uploading of this one-minute sex clip in websites is punishable by law. Street vendors who will sell this video can also be held liable. Violating RA 9995 carries a maximum penalty of 7-year imprisonment and a fine of P500, 000. Any media outlet that airs this clip or publishes screen shots from the video can have their license to operate or franchise revoked. The law sounds strict, but it is almost impossible to implement thoroughly. Using the Ram Revilla-Janelle Manahan sex video, here are some questions I have in mind: 1. Where did this video come from (i.e. Rams laptop)? Who copied it from that source? 2. Who uploaded it to the Internet? 3. Who are those who reposted/re-uploaded the video in other websites?
Page 41
R.A. No. 9995
Pinpointing the persons behind the aforementioned acts is a near-impossible task for our authorities. First, the Revilla clan seems not to be cooperative even though they should feel violated because a murdered kin is involved in the video. Second, how are they going to find out the person who did the initial uploading of the video online? Third, how can they track the online users (all of them!) who reposted the video in other websites? If a concrete case can emerge from the proliferation of the Ram Revilla-Janelle Manahan sex video, then it can be the first real test of the strength and worthiness of the Philippine AntiPhoto and Video Voyeurism Act.
Page 42
R.A. No. 9995
CONCERNS / COMMENTS ABOUT R.A 9995 Living in a modern world where technology is indispensible and has become a part of an ordinary life, it is but timely that there should be a law that will regulate activities in the cyber world for the reason that the power of technology is not just used for work, education and leisure but has been used as a tool to commit crimes as well. Hence the passing of RA 9995 or the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009. In order for this law to be as effective as the lawmakers intended it to be, there should be a budget for the purchase of high tech and effective electronic devices which will aid the law enforcers in tracking and capturing cyber criminals. There should also be a budget for the continuous education and training of the law enforcers for as we know, technology is fast-changing. Our government agency should also gather and employ the best hackers in the country to work for them instead of these hackers to work for the criminals or be the criminals themselves. Being a fairly new law, no case has yet reached the Supreme Court and therefore, there is no jurisprudence available. Most of the cases in relation to RA 9995 were dismissed in the lower courts since the quantum of evidence needed for someone to be convicted of this crime cant be produced. R.A 9995 has been in effect for almost 4 years now. Considering the high percentage of Filipinos who are victims of cybercrime, it is disappointing to know that no one has been punished yet to the full extent of the law since the said crime requires proof beyond reasonable doubt as quantum of evidence. With this, we cannot help but wonder, is R.A 9995 meeting its purpose of protecting and bringing justice to the victims of cybercrime?
Page 43
R.A. No. 9995
Like many other things, the internet has its pros and cons. With the continuous and vast growth of technology, it is both amazing and scary to think of what it has done to affect our lives. The intention of R.A 9995 to act as a shield of the people who are being victimized by cybercrime is undoubtedly great but clearly, this is not enough. Cyber criminals continue to commit cybercrime even if we have the law punishing them because they know that proving they committed the crime is a difficult if not next to impossible job. For example, these criminals can upload videos or photos using public computers. If the person in the video reports the crime to the authorities, how are the authorities going to track the person who uploaded it? Tracing the server or the i.p address of the video or photo may help but it is most possibly going to be useless since even if you track down the computer, how will you track down the people who used it? Internet shops do not keep a list of the people who use their computers and the time they used it. Second, it will be a hell of a task to trace down all the people who reposted or shared the video or photo. The government, in its mission to prevent cybercrime and penalize cyber criminals must find a way to make R.A 9995 effective in the sense that it fulfills its purpose. The Philippines has so many laws but how many of them are really helping the people? Our lawmakers must not be contented in passing laws that may be useful but they should also see to it that these laws in fact meet their objectives. R.A 9995 may lay down all the circumstances where a person may be guilty of voyeurism and a penalty but what good are these if people who are guilty of the said crime do not get punished at all because its too difficult to prove it? Are the victims of cybercrimes hanging on just false hopes then, thinking that they could get justice for the abuse they experienced because we have this law but in the end do not get it since it is not difficult for criminals to circumvent the law? Section 13, 1987 Philippine Constitution provides: The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being.
Page 44
R.A. No. 9995
It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs. There is a huge number of out of school youth in our country today. And since computer and technology are some of the things that can easily attract them, the government, in its duty to promote the intellectual well being of the youth can invest in their education and in return they can help in providing solutions and making R.A 9995 an efficient law.
[End of Report and Comments on R.A. No. 9995]
Page 45

Ra 9995

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Ra 9995

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

R.A. No. 9995

Presented to: Judge Oscar Pimentel 17, January 2013

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS Faculty of Civil Law 2B SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

R.A. No. 9995

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS Faculty of Civil Law 2B SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

R.A. No. 9995

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS Faculty of Civil Law 2B SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

R.A. No. 9995

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS Faculty of Civil Law 2B SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

R.A. No. 9995

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

R.A. No. 9995

(Sgd.) PROSPERO C. NOGRALES Speaker of the House of Representatives

(Sgd.) JUAN PONCE ENRILE President of the Senate

(Sgd.) MARILYN B. BARUA-YAP Secretary General House of Represenatives

(Sgd.) EMMA LIRIO-REYES Secretary of Senate

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS Faculty of Civil Law 2B SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

R.A. No. 9995

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

R.A. No. 9995

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS Faculty of Civil Law 2B SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

R.A. No. 9995

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS Faculty of Civil Law 2B SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

R.A. No. 9995

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

R.A. No. 9995

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS Faculty of Civil Law 2B SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

R.A. No. 9995

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS Faculty of Civil Law 2B SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

R.A. No. 9995

If the offender is a juridical person:

If the offender is a public officer or employee or a professional: If the offender is an alien:

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS Faculty of Civil Law 2B SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

R.A. No. 9995

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS Faculty of Civil Law 2B SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

R.A. No. 9995

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS Faculty of Civil Law 2B SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

R.A. No. 9995

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS Faculty of Civil Law 2B SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

R.A. No. 9995

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS Faculty of Civil Law 2B SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

R.A. No. 9995

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

R.A. No. 9995

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS Faculty of Civil Law 2B SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

R.A. No. 9995

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009

R.A. No. 9995