essay about cybercrime complaints in the philippines

Essay on Cybercrime Complaints In The Philippines

Students are often asked to write an essay on Cybercrime Complaints In The Philippines in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Cybercrime Complaints In The Philippines

Introduction.

Cybercrime refers to illegal activities done using computers or the internet. In the Philippines, cybercrime complaints are rising. This essay talks about this issue in simple words.

The Rise of Cybercrime

In the Philippines, cybercrime complaints have gone up. This is because more people are using the internet. They do things like shopping, banking, and chatting online. But, some people use the internet to do bad things. They steal information or money from others.

Types of Cybercrime

There are many types of cybercrime. Some people trick others into giving them money. This is called phishing. Others might spread harmful software, known as malware. These are just a few examples.

Government’s Role

The government in the Philippines is working hard to fight cybercrime. They have laws and teams to catch cybercriminals. They also teach people how to stay safe online. This is very important to stop cybercrime.

Cybercrime is a big problem in the Philippines. But, with the right steps, we can fight it. Everyone has a role to play. We should all learn how to use the internet safely.

250 Words Essay on Cybercrime Complaints In The Philippines

Understanding cybercrime.

Cybercrime is a crime that takes place online, on the internet. It can involve stealing someone’s personal information, bullying people online, or even spreading fake news. It’s a big problem all over the world, including in the Philippines.

The Rise of Cybercrime in the Philippines

In the Philippines, cybercrime is growing fast. This is because more people are using the internet for work, school, and fun. But some people use it to commit crimes. In 2020, the Philippines’ cybercrime complaints were nearly double compared to 2019. This shows that cybercrime is a serious issue in the country.

Types of Cybercrime Complaints

There are many types of cybercrime complaints in the Philippines. Some of the most common ones include identity theft, online scams, and cyberbullying. Identity theft is when someone steals your personal information, like your name and credit card details, without your permission. Online scams trick people into giving away their money or personal details. Cyberbullying is when someone uses the internet to hurt or embarrass another person.

Dealing with Cybercrime

The Philippines government is working hard to fight cybercrime. They have set up a special group, called the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center, to handle these issues. They also have strict laws to punish those who commit cybercrimes.

In conclusion, cybercrime is a growing problem in the Philippines. It’s important to stay safe online and report any suspicious activity. The government is doing its part, but we all need to do ours too. Remember, the internet can be a great tool, but only if we use it responsibly.

500 Words Essay on Cybercrime Complaints In The Philippines

Introduction to cybercrime.

Cybercrime is a term we use for crimes that use computers and the internet. These crimes can include things like stealing personal information, spreading harmful content, or disrupting digital systems. The Philippines, like other countries, has seen a rise in cybercrime.

Understanding Cybercrime in the Philippines

In the Philippines, cybercrime is a big problem. The number of complaints about these crimes has been increasing. In 2020 alone, the Philippine National Police (PNP) received more than 4,000 cybercrime complaints. This shows that it’s a serious issue that needs attention.

The Types of Cybercrime Complaints

There are many types of cybercrimes that people in the Philippines complain about. Some common ones are online scams, identity theft, and online libel. Online scams trick people into giving away money or personal information. Identity theft is when someone uses another person’s details, like their name or bank account, without permission. Online libel is when someone spreads false information about another person on the internet.

The Impact of Cybercrime

Cybercrime can have a big impact on people’s lives. It can lead to loss of money, damage to reputation, and emotional distress. For businesses, it can lead to loss of customer trust and financial loss. For the country, it can slow down economic growth and make people feel unsafe using digital technologies.

Efforts to Fight Cybercrime

The Philippine government is working hard to fight cybercrime. They have set up a special group called the Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG) to handle these crimes. They also passed a law in 2012, the Cybercrime Prevention Act, to punish people who commit these crimes.

What Can Be Done to Reduce Cybercrime

To reduce cybercrime, everyone needs to play a part. People should learn how to protect themselves online. This includes using strong passwords, being careful about sharing personal information, and not clicking on suspicious links. Schools can help by teaching students about online safety. The government can also keep improving its laws and systems to fight cybercrime.

In conclusion, cybercrime is a serious problem in the Philippines that affects many people. The government is making efforts to fight it, but everyone has a role to play in protecting themselves and others from these crimes. By working together, we can make the digital world a safer place.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Cyberbullying On Social Media
• Essay on Daily Routine Of A Student
• Essay on Daily Routine For Working Person

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• COVID-19 Full Coverage
• Cover Stories
• Ulat Filipino
• Special Reports
• Personal Finance
• Other sports
• Pinoy Achievers
• Immigration Guide
• Science and Research
• Technology, Gadgets and Gaming
• Chika Minute
• Showbiz Abroad
• Family and Relationships
• Art and Culture
• Health and Wellness
• Shopping and Fashion
• Hobbies and Activities
• News Hardcore
• Walang Pasok
• Transportation
• Missing Persons
• Community Bulletin Board
• GMA Public Affairs
• State of the Nation
• Unang Balita
• Balitanghali
• News TV Live

Top 5 cybercrimes complaints in the Philippines, according to PNP

• The PNP ACG website: www.acg.pnp.gov.ph
• Text: 0998-568-9082
• The hotline: 414-1560 / 723-0401 loc 5313
• E-mail: [email protected]

Philippine Legal Research

R.A. No. 10175: The Cybercrime Prevention Act: The Net Commandments

By Elvic Gravino, JD1 and Mary Clare Villanueva, JD1

Brief History

The legal framework of the Republic Act No. 10175 or “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012” is in line with the Cybercrime Prevention Act of the Budapest Convention, which took effect in February 2014.

The Philippine Congress enacted the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which addresses entirely crimes committed against and through the computer system on September 12 2012, and signed by President Benigno Aquino III. It includes substantive penal, procedural, and international cooperation rules.

Amendatory bills on cybercrime investigations are a work-in-progress in the Philippines, aiming to introduce new procedural powers, responsibilities, and extradition provisions. These amendatory bills aim to provide a structured approach for prosecutors and investigators on cybercrime investigations and further align national legislation with the Budapest Convention.

Understanding the Purpose of the Act

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 focuses on the pre-emption, prevention, and prosecution of cybercrimes such as offenses against the privacy, confidentiality, integrity, and availability of computer data and systems, computer-related offenses, and content-related offenses.

Its original goal was to penalize acts in Republic Act 9775 like cybersex and child pornography and RA 10173 like identity theft and unsolicited electronic communications. However, various groups opposed the provision to expand the scope of libel law to cover Internet posts, which led the Supreme Court to issue a temporary restraining order and a status quo ante order.

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 could sentence internet users to up to 12 years in prison for posting defamatory commentaries on social media, such as Facebook and Twitter. Though online libel was not part of the original bill proposed by the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Senate passed an amendment to insert it and was primarily proposed by Senator Vicente Sotto III.

In addition, this act provides that 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 Revised Penal Code, provided, that the penalty should be one degree higher than the penalty imposed in the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws. Furthermore, this act provides that prosecution under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws.

Effectiveness and Value

On October 9, 2012, six days after the law took effect, the Supreme Court issued a four-month injunction while scrutinizing the law for possible violations of constitutional provisions on freedom of expression. Then, on February 6, 2020, the Supreme Court extended the temporary restraining order indefinitely.

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 sanctions content-related offenses performed using a computer system, such as cybersex, child pornography, and libel. In addition, unsolicited commercial communications or content that advertises or sells products or services is also punished. However, there are some exceptions to this law relating to the transmission of unsolicited material: it is not a crime if the recipient has given prior agreement, the communication is an announcement from the sender to users, and the recipient has an easy, reliable way to refuse it, among other things.

Individuals found guilty of cybersex face a minimum prison sentence of six years and one day, a maximum prison of 12 years, and a fine of at least P200,000 but not more than P1,000,000.In addition, unsolicited communication is punishable by one month to six months in prison, a fine of not less than P50,000 but not more than P250,000, or both.

Child pornography through computer systems has a penalty of one degree higher than what is provided in RA 9775, or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009. In RA 9775, those who produce, disseminate, or publish child pornography will be fined the amount of not less than P50,000 but not more than P5,000,000 and a maximum prison sentence of 20 to 40 years.

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 also penalizes offenses against the privacy, confidentiality, integrity, and availability of computer data and systems, such as illegal access, unauthorized interference, system interference, data interference, misuse of devices, and cybersquatting. In this context, cybersquatting is defined as the acquisition of domain names on the internet in bad faith or with the intent to gain profit, mislead, destroy one’s reputation or deprive others of registering or creating an account to the domain name involved. Also, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 covers any digital fraud, computer-related forgery, and identity theft.

In the Philippines, as many as 87 percent of Filipinos were identified as victims of malicious activities committed online, according to DOJ, which quoted a 2010 report of the security software firm Symantec. These include victims of malware invasion, sexual predation, and online or phishing scams.

Salient Points the Public Must Know

The public must know that the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 has the following features:

• Internationally consistent definitions for cybercrime
• Nuanced liability for cybercrime offenders
• Increased penalties
• Enhanced authority granted to law enforcement authorities
• Expanded jurisdictional authority for prosecution
• Provisions for international cybercrime coordination effort and greater ability to combat cybercrimes

Several of the definitions of cybercrimes under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 are patterned after the Budapest Convention’s definition of illegal access and an interception, data and system interference, misuse of devices, computer-related forgery, and computer-related fraud.

Here are the offenses that fall under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012:

Offenses Against Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability of Computer Data and Systems

• Illegal access
• Illegal interception
• Data Interference
• System Interference
• Misuse of Devices
• Cyber Squatting

Computer-Related Offenses

• Computer-related forgery
• Computer-related Fraud
• Computer-related Identity Theft

Content-Related Offenses

• Child Pornography
• Unsolicited Commercial Communications

Other Offenses

• Aiding or abetting in the Commission of Cybercrime
• Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime

The National Bureau of Investigation and Philippine National Police are the law enforcement authorities for the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Both shall organize a cybercrime unit or center staffed by special investigators to handle cases involving violations of this Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 exclusively.

• To ensure that the technical nature of cybercrime and its prevention get the attention it deserves.
• To submit timely and regular reports to the Department of Justice for review and monitoring, including pre-operation, post-operation, and investigation outcomes, as well as any other materials that may be necessary.
• Authorized to collect or record traffic statistics in real-time related to specific communications conducted via a computer system using technical or electronic means.

Only the origin, destination, route, time, date, size, duration, or type of underlying service are referred to as traffic data, not the content or identity of the communication. A court warrant will be required for any other data to be acquired, seized, or released.

The Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction over any violation of the provisions of this Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Including any violation committed by a Filipino national regardless of the place of commission. Jurisdiction shall lie if any of the elements was committed within the Philippines or committed with the use of any computer system wholly or partly situated in the country, or when by such commission any damage is caused to a natural or juridical person who, at the time the offense was committed, was in the Philippines.

Reporting A Cybercrime

Now that there are specialized teams to address issues of cybercrime in the country, there are more ways than one to file a complaint. On the Philippine National Police Anti-Cybercrime Group’s website, complaints may be filed through:

• Walk-in, Anti-Cybercrime Group Building, Camp Crame, Quezon City, Manila
• Complaint Action Center Hotline [+63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491]
• Viber [+639618298083]
• Facebook [facebook.com/anticybercrimegroup]
• Twitter [@pnpacg]

See the website here: https://pnpacg.ph/main/contacts.html

The Department of Justice also provides a matrix on their website to easily guide the netizens with a checklist of who may complain, the cybercrime offense complained of, and documentary requirements to support the complaint. Similar with the PNPACG, there are walk-in and electronic options are available:

• Walk-in, Office of the Cybercrime, DOJ, Ermita, Manila
• Website [www.doj.gov.ph]
• E-mail [[email protected]]
• Hotline [526-2747/521-8345]
• Letter Report

See the website here: [https://www.doj.gov.ph/reporting_cybercrime.html#:~:text=Reporting%20of%20Cybercrime%20Incidents%20%3A%3A,8482%2C%20(%2B632)%20523%206826]

In a Nutshell

We have come a long way from passing and temporarily restraining the Cybercrime Prevention Act. Given the technological advancements of today, everything intangible becomes readily available at our fingertips. Cyber scams are so widespread that a simple click could start a wildfire of spam links sent to contacts across all social accounts. During this pandemic especially, we all need the levels of protection that can be afforded to us. The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is inclusive, comprehensive, and provides for accessibility options to the complainant.

Although the action and response of designated authorities to cybercrime are still far from perfect, it is an Act that continuously seeks to improve the protection of every Filipino netizen’s rights.

Share this:

Published by maryclarevillanueva

View all posts by maryclarevillanueva

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Conventus Law

More results...

Philippines – New Rules On Issuance Of Cybercrime Warrants And Filing Cybercrime Cases.

September 23, 2018 by Conventus Law

23 September, 2018

Cybercrime Litigation: New Rules on Issuance of Cybercrime Warrants and Filing Cybercrime Cases 

Recent issuances by the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice (DOJ) give rise to two important developments in the field of Cybercrime litigation. The Supreme Court recently approved A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC, or the Rule on Cybercrime Warrants, which became effective on 15 August 2018. Meanwhile, the DOJ issued Advisory Opinion No. 1, s. 2018, clarifying the roles of the National Bureau of Investigation ("NBI") and the Philippine National Police (PNP) in the prosecution of cybercrime cases.

Filing a complaint with the NBI or the PNP not a requirement for prosecuting a cybercrime case

In an Advisory Opinion, the DOJ clarified that cybercrime complaints can be filed directly with the prosecutor's office, without need of prior investigation by the NBI-Cybercrime Division or the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group. 

The Advisory Opinion was issued in the wake of cybercrime cases being dismissed by prosecutors, for failure of complainants to first initiate an investigation by the NBI-Cybercrime Division or the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group — citing Section 10 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 which provides that "the NBI and the PNP shall organize a cybercrime unit or center manned by special investigators to exclusively handle cases involving violations of this Act." 

The DOJ clarified that the phrase "to exclusively handle cases involving violations of this Act" in Section 10 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 does not confer on these agencies the sole authority to investigate cybercrime cases. It only provides a limitation on the type of cases that may be handled by these agencies.

However, parties remain free to ask for these agencies' assistance, or obtain the services of private forensic experts, if needed. 

Cybercrime warrants

A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC provides for the issuance of 4 types of warrants, which are briefly discussed below. 

(1) Warrant to Disclose Computer Data (WDCD)

A WDCD requires any person or service provider to disclose subscriber's information, traffic data, or relevant data in his/her or its possession or control within 72 hours from receipt of the order. A request for WDCD may only be filed if there is a complaint officially docketed and assigned for investigation and the disclosure is necessary and relevant for the investigation. Among others, the request for WDCD must state the relevance and necessity of the data sought and describe particularly the information sought to be disclosed.

(2) Warrant to Intercept Computer Data (WICD)

A WICD authorizes the law enforcement authorities to listen to, record, monitor, or conduct surveillance of the content of communications, including the use of electronic eavesdropping or tapping devices. The request for a WICD must also state the relevance and necessity of the data sought and describe particularly the information sought to be disclosed. Also, the request must state the likely offense involved.

(3) Warrant to Search, Seize, and Examine Computer Data (WSSECD)

A WSSECD is similar to a search warrant, except the subject matter of a WSSECD is computer data. The request for a WSSECD must also state the relevance and necessity of the data sought and describe particularly the information sought to be seized and examined. Also, the request must state the likely offense involved. In addition, the request must contain an explanation of the search and seizure strategy to be implemented.

Upon the conduct of the seizure, law enforcement must file a return stating the (a) devices that were subject of the WSSECD and (b) the hash value of the computer data and/or the seized computer device or computer system containing such data.

(4) Warrant to Examine Computer Data (WECD)

A WECD is a warrant issued when a computer device or system is previously seized by another lawful method, such as a warrantless arrest. Before searching any device seized, law enforcement must apply for a WECD. The request for a WECD must also state the relevance and necessity of the data sought and describe particularly the information sought to be disclosed. Also, the request must state the likely offense involved.

Upon the conduct of the seizure, law enforcement must file a return stating the (a) devices that were subject of the WECD and (b) the hash value of the computer data and/or the seized computer device or computer system containing such data.

How these warrants can be obtained 

The four warrants described above are only obtained by law enforcement agencies (i.e., the PNP or the NBI) from Regional Trial Courts specially designated to handle cybercrime cases. Thus, private complainants will need to coordinate with such agencies if such warrants are to be obtained. 

Notably, Regional Trial Courts in Quezon City, Manila City, Makati City, Pasig City, Cebu City, Iloilo City, Davao City, and Cagayan de Oro City are empowered to issue warrants that are enforceable throughout the Philippines

Why these developments affect you

With the clarification issued by the DOJ, clients have more leeway in deciding whether to involve law enforcement agencies in an investigation preparatory to the filing of a cybercrime complaint against an individual. 

Also, clients who are encountering legal difficulties in proceeding with a cybercrime complaint, or who may have a complaint dismissed for failure to involve the NBI or PNP, may make use of the DOJ's Advisory Opinion.

Clients involved in cybercrime litigation may avail of the remedies afforded by the 4 new warrants, in coordination with law enforcement agencies. 

Meanwhile, considering that these warrants can be directed at "service providers" — broadly defined as an entity that provides users the ability to communicate using a computer system or that processes or stores computer data on behalf of a communication service or user — clients providing internet services, those providing platforms for communications and social media, and the like, should be prepared to respond to such warrants.

For further information, please contact: 

Donemark Calimon , Partner, Quisumbing Torres

[email protected] 

Register for your monthly Asia legal updates from Conventus Law

Error: Contact form not found.

US – Doron Goldstein Featured In Law360’s Article “Healthcare Hack May Be Wake-up Call For Industry And Gov’t”.

EU Adopts First Of A Series Of Voluntary Cybersecurity Certification Schemes.

Thailand’s Regulations For Cross-Border Personal Data Transfer Come Into Force.

- nopparat lalitkomon - senior associate, tilleke & gibbins.

CONVENTUS LAW

CONVENTUS DOCS CONVENTUS PEOPLE

3/f, Chinachem Tower 34-37 Connaught Road Central, Central, Hong Kong

[email protected]

Category: Guide

Guide: how to file a cyber crime complaint in the philippines.

WhatALife Contributor

• Share on Twitter Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn Share on LinkedIn

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

In today’s digital age, the widespread use of technology has brought numerous conveniences, but it has also exposed individuals and businesses to the risk of cybercrime. As the Philippines continues to embrace technological advancements, cases of cybercrime have grown, creating the need to properly deal with these kinds of cases. If you find yourself or someone you know falling victim to cybercrime in the Philippines, it is crucial to know how to file a cybercrime complaint properly.

Table of contents

How to file cyber crime complaint on cicc, how to file a cyber crime complaint on pnp, nbi cybercrime hotline, how to file a cyber crime complaint on department of justice.

This comprehensive guide aims to walk you through the step-by-step process of filing cybercrime in the Philippines to understand what kind of legal actions can be taken. From understanding what constitutes cybercrime in the Philippines to approaching the appropriate authorities, we will cover all the essential aspects to ensure a smooth and efficient resolution.

To successfully navigate the process of filing a cybercrime complaint, you must be aware of the correct channels and agencies responsible for handling such cases. This guide will provide a comprehensive list of government bodies, like the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), that play vital roles in investigating and prosecuting cybercrime.

By following the guidelines presented in this guide, you can take the necessary steps to protect yourself and your loved ones from cybercrime in the Philippines. Reporting these offenses not only holds the perpetrators accountable but also contributes to making the digital landscape safer for everyone.

Filing a cyber crime complaint on CICC is straightforward and easy as it is specifically designed to help users to make complaints solely on cybercrime. This article will give you an easy description of how to file a complaint using CICC.

• To file a complaint, go to  cicc.gov.ph . 
• Once you have reached the website, look on the top left and click “Submit a Complaint”
• As it states, “The information provided on this form should be as accurate as possible. Providing false information could lead to a fine, imprisonment, or both, under Article 183-184 of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by R.A. 11594).”
• Complaints will be directed to law enforcement agencies for proper investigation.
• After reading everything on the page and knowing the Privacy Act Statement, click “I Agree”
• Afterward, the user will be led to a page that will need the user’s information.
• Correctly fill out the required information and give specific details, evidence, and I.D. for the cybercrime you will file.
• After giving all the necessities for the complaint, click the checkbox noting that you have provided accurate and true information for the Sec. 5.3 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act.
• Wait for further details after the complaint has been sent.

Filing a cybercrime with PNP is very simple. One of the ways is to call law enforcers and explain the situation and go to the police station physically to make a complaint. In case of that, make sure to follow these steps.

• Secure a screenshot of the cybercrime that has been done.
• Have a signed and subscribed affidavit complaint alleging the details of how the respondent committed the crime against you.
• Provide affidavits of witnesses stating that they read and know of the cybercrime that has been done.
• File your affidavit complaint and support documents with the prosecutor’s office nearby you.

To file an e-complaint with PNP, visit their e-complaint link at  acg.pnp.gov.ph/eComplaint/index.php . You would first have to make an account to send a complaint through their e-complaint desk. After creating an account, follow the same steps for filing a cybercrime complaint and wait for a response from the PNP.

NBI offices also work on cyber crime activities. When using the NBI website for investigation services, visit  https://nbi.gov.ph/services/investigation-services/ . This page will show you the different crime-related divisions for investigations to help victims with certain things.

One of the listed divisions is the Cyber Crime Division. As you join the website, it will show the division chief and direct hotline, including email addresses for victims who need help to contact them. 

The Department of Justice has a specific office for cybercrime-related cases that help people make a complaint on a cybercrime issue. When joining their website,  cybercrime.doj.gov.ph  click “Contact Us” on the top right of the page.

Once you click it, users will have an address, telephone number, and email to contact the Department of Justice. Users need to provide sound evidence to visit the address or deliver it through email when contacting the Department of Justice. 

Just like filing a complaint with the PNP, the following steps must be followed when filing a cyber crime case:

• Have a signed and subscribed affidavit complaint alleging how the respondent committed the crime against you.
• Provide affidavits of witnesses stating that they read they know of the cybercrime that has been done.

–  WhatALife!/Zain

Source: ( 1 ), ( 2 ), ( 3 ), ( 4 ), ( 5 )

Also read:  LIST: Sickness Covered by SSS

Contributor writers of WhatALife!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Latest News

• Sunscreen FAQs: Get the Most Out of Your Sun Protection April 19, 2024
• Taylor Swift releases highly anticipated 11th Studio Album “The Tortured Poets Department”  April 19, 2024
• ‘Transformers One’ trailer reveals Optimus Prime and Megatron as besties April 19, 2024
• Vlogger ‘Boy Tapang’ apologizes for using P1M cash as a kite April 19, 2024
• Indonesians forced to evacuate as Mount Ruang erupts April 19, 2024

Viral Stories

• 299-peso engagement ring issue ignites debate among netizens January 7, 2024
• Filipina Maid Gets Emotional as Employer Surprises Her with Gift July 6, 2023
• Pauline Carpio: What Happened to Her? June 13, 2023
• Cockroach Makes an Appearance at 2023 Met Gala and Walks the Red Carpet May 3, 2023
• Puppy rescues 5-year-old girl from house fire in GenSan April 27, 2023

Exam Results

• List of Passers – April 2024 Real Estate Brokers Exam Results April 19, 2024
• List of Passers – April 2024 Pharmacists Exam Results April 19, 2024
• List of Passers – April 2024 Electronics Technician Exam Results April 12, 2024
• List of Passers – April 2024 Electronics Engineer Exam Results April 12, 2024
• List of Passers – April 2024 Physician Exam Results April 11, 2024

Lotto Results

• SWERTRES RESULTS April 18, 2024 (Thursday) April 18, 2024
• EZ2 2D RESULTS April 18, 2024 (Thursday) April 18, 2024
• SWERTRES RESULTS April 17, 2024 (Wednesday) April 18, 2024
• EZ2 2D RESULTS April 17, 2024 (Wednesday) April 18, 2024
• EZ2 2D RESULTS April 16, 2024 (Tuesday) April 16, 2024

• Commercial Law
• Constitutional Law
• Criminal Law
• Law Related Discussion
• Legal Ethics
• Procedural Law
• Special Penal Laws
• Cybercrime Law in the Philippines | Brief Synopsis

by  RALB Law

The Philippines’ legal framework for cybercrime and electronic evidence is substantially consistent with the Budapest Convention, with the Cybercrime Prevention Act taking effect in February 2014.

The Congress of the Philippines passed Republic Act No. 10175, 1 often known as the “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012,” which addresses all types of cybercrime committed against and by means of computer system on September 12, 2012.

It contains substantive penal regulations, procedural courses of action, and international cooperation rules. In the Philippines, amendatory bills on cybercrime investigations are always on hindsight, with contemporary provisions on procedural powers, obligations, and extradition being continuously explored.

The dynamism of information technology likewise necessitates constant evolution on the legal approaches that may be subsequently needed as a result of the emergence of novel situations.

The modifications are intended to give prosecutors and investigators with a structured approach to cybercrime probes and to further align national legislation with the Budapest Convention.

The Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 focuses on preventing, detecting, and prosecuting cybercrimes such as offenses against the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of computer data and systems, as well as computer-related and content-related offenses.

Furthermore, Section 6 of the Act states that any crimes specified and punished by the Revised Penal Code , as amended, and special laws that are committed by, through, or with the use of information and communications technology are covered by the Revised Penal Code’s applicable provisions.

It is provided, however, that the penalty imposed shall be one degree greater than that imposed under the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special legislation, as applicable.

Furthermore, Section 7 of the Cybercrime Act states that any prosecution under the Act is without prejudice to any culpability for violating any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws.

What is cybercrime law all about?

Cybercrime law establishes standards of acceptable behavior for users of information and communication technology (ICT).

It protects ICT users in general, and mitigates and/or prevents harm to people, data, systems, services, and infrastructure in particular; protects human rights.

This modern day law enables the investigation and prosecution of online crimes and promotes international cooperation on cybercrime issues.

The usage of the internet, computers, and similar digital technology, as well as the acts of the public, government, and commercial sector, are governed by cybercrime legislation, which includes rules of proof and criminal procedure, and other cybercrime-related criminal justice issues.

This statute [Cybercrime Law], as well, provides regulation in order to decrease risk and/or ameliorate the harm caused to persons, businesses, and infrastructure in the event of a cybercrime. As a result, cybercrime law includes substantive, procedural, and preventive.

The State’s awareness of the information and communications sectors’ critical role in the nation’s overall social and economic growth, as well as the necessity to preserve and safeguard computer systems and networks from all types of misuse, abuse, and unlawful access.

The transgressions against computer data and systems’ confidentiality, integrity, and availability. This category includes offenses such as unauthorized access to a computer system or unauthorized access to a computer, as well as cybersquatting, or the acquisition of a domain name in bad faith in order to profit, mislead, and destroy reputation, as well as preventing others from registering the name.

What is the punishment of cybercrime?

As stated above, this cybercrime law is punitive in nature. Thus, the Act punishes anyone who tries to commit a cybercrime, or who intentionally abets or assists in the conduct of a cybercrime, as defined and penalized under the law itself or in relation to the Revised Penal Code.

Furthermore, the Act states that all crimes listed under current laws shall be covered by the Act’s applicable provisions if they are committed through and with the use of information and communications technologies.

Cybercrime Libel | Online Libel

Several bills were presented shortly after the Cybercrime Prevention Act was signed into law in September 2012, with the goal of repealing key sections of Republic Act No. 10175, including the restrictions on online libel .

Such legislation aimed to address the issue of online libel, which was seen as a sort of online censorship in and of itself.

The Supreme Court ruled that online libel only applies to those who create or publish libelous content, not to those who read, comment to, like, or share it. A bill was introduced in the 17th Congress to evaluate these disputed issues that jeopardize the right to free speech.

Procedural Course of Action

The Philippine Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 also establishes procedural requirements for law enforcement agencies charged with enforcing and implementing 2 the provisions.

To ensure that the technical nature of cybercrime and its prevention is prioritized, as well as the procedures for international cooperation, law enforcement authorities, specifically the computer or technology crime divisions responsible for cybercrime investigations, are required to submit timely and accurate reports.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is the one who will handle the evaluation and monitoring, including pre-operation, post-operation, and investigation outcomes, as well as any other documentation that may be necessary.

The National Cybersecurity Plan has four main objectives:

(1) ensuring the continuous operation of the nation’s critical information infrastructures, public and military networks;

(2) implementing cyber resiliency measures to improve the ability to respond to threats before, during, and after attacks;

(3) effective coordination with law enforcement agencies; and

(4) a cybersecurity-aware society.

Seizure Warrants | Cybercrime | Nutshell Discussion

As a necessary consequence of this cybercrime law is the adoption of cybercrime warrants. While our procedural rules govern and regulate the issuance of the commonly known search warrants , nonetheless, by the nature of the object of the seizure or the things to be seized, which are not tangible object, but virtual ones, such as electronic information, the present rules 3 relating to regular search warrants may not be sufficient to address that situation of electronic data seizure.

Hence, when what is involved are electronic data, which are illegal in nature or operation and can be the object of search and seizure, the Supreme Court of the Philippines, as part of their rule-making power, promulgated 4 A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC otherwise known as the Cybercrime Warrants.

• Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 [ ↩ ]
• Implementing Rules, Republic Act No. 10175 [ ↩ ]
• Search and Seizure , Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure [ ↩ ]
• Rule on Cybercrime Warrants , A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC [ ↩ ]

RALB Law | RABR & Associates Law Firm

Leave a reply.

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

Name * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Email * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

You cannot copy content of this page

Philippine e-Legal Forum

Philippine laws and legal system (pnl-law blog).

Online Libel as Cybercrime in the Philippines: Definition, Requisites and Application of Penalties

The crime of libel in the Philippines is defined and penalized under Article 353 (“Definition of Libel”), in relation to Article 355 (“Libel by means of writings or similar means”) of the Revised Penal Code (“RPC”). There was a debate whether the required “publication” in libel encompasses the internet, which was not yet in existence when the RPC was enacted. This debate has been laid to rest, with the enactment of Republic Act (“R.A.”) No. 10175, also known as the  Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 . This article discusses the definition, elements/requisites and applicable penalties for online libel. 

DEFINITION OF LIBEL

Criminal libel is defined as a public and malicious imputation of a crime or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

THE CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT

The  Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012  defines and penalizes cybercrimes, broken down into three main categories: 

• (a)  system -related offenses, i.e., illegal access, illegal interception, data interference, system interference, misuse of devices, and cyber-squatting; 
• (b)  computer -related offenses, i.e., forgery, fraud, and identity theft; and 
• (c)  content -related offenses, i.e., cybersex, child pornography, and  libel . 

It is interesting to note that the  Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 10175 provides a different mode of classifying cybercrimes, as follows:

• (a)  Cybercrime Offenses  under Section 4, also referred to as “core cybercrime.” The IRR follows the classifications of “Cybercrime Offenses” under R.A. 10175, with the notable demotion of cyber-squatting, cybersex, and libel as “Other cybercrimes”. 
• (b)  Other Cybercrimes  under Section 5: (a) cyber-squatting; (b) cybersex; (c) libel; and (d) other offenses, which area aiding/abetting in the commission of cybercrime, and attempt in the commission of cybercrime.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court’s  Rule on Cybercrime Warrants  classifies cybercrimes, for purposes of determining the venue, in this manner:

• (a) Cybercrime Offenses under Section 4 of R.A. 10175 and Other Offenses under Section 5 thereof; and 
• (b) pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. 10175 , all crimes defined and penalized in other laws, if committed by, through, and with the use of Information Communications Technology or ICT.

DEFINITION OF ONLINE LIBEL

As provided in Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175 , online libel is “[t]he unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.” The crime is simply called “libel” under R.A. 10175 .

To distinguish it from libel committed by traditional means, it is properly called “online libel” (although it is sometimes referred to as cyber-libel, internet libel, or electronic libel). Online libel was challenged as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, however, concluded that online libel under R.A. 10175 is valid and not unconstitutional, with the proviso that online libel does not cover those who simply receive the post and react to it (those who pressed Like, Comment and Share). However, if the “Comment” does not merely react to the original posting but creates an altogether new defamatory story, then that should be considered an original posting published on the internet. 

SEPARATE CHARGES UNDER RPC AND R.A. 10175

The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 provides that a “prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or special laws” (Sec. 7). In a subsequent case, the Supreme Court stated that the determination of the applicability of Section 7 will be left to actual cases in the future. 

The Supreme Court, however, declared that there can be no two prosecutions of libel under the RPC and online libel under R.A. 10175 , for such constitutes a violation of the proscription against double jeopardy. When a published material on print, said to be libelous, is again posted online or vice versa, that identical material cannot be the subject of two separate charges for libel. The two offenses, one a violation of the RPC and the other a violation of R.A. 10175 involve essentially the same elements and are in fact one and the same offense. Online libel refers to the means of publication – through the computer system.

REQUISITES OF LIBEL

Online libel is simply libel, in its traditional sense, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future. In other words, the traditional elements or requisites of libel still apply. For an imputation to be libelous under Art. 353 of the RPC,   the following requisites must be present: (a) it must be defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be given publicity; and (d) the victim must be identifiable.

A fifth element or requisite is added under R.A. 10175 for online libel: the act must be committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.

FIRST REQUISITE: DEFAMATORY STATEMENT

An allegation is considered  defamatory   if it ascribes to a person the commission of a crime, the possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt, or which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

In determining whether a statement is  defamatory ,  the words used are to be construed in their entirety and should be taken in their plain, natural, and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by persons reading them, unless it appears that they were used and understood in another sense.

Moreover, a charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and understand that the person or persons against whom they were uttered were guilty of certain offenses or are sufficient to impeach the honesty, virtue or reputation or to hold the person or persons up to public ridicule.

SECOND REQUISITE: MALICE

Malice   connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person defamed, and implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad motive. It is the essence of the crime of libel.

Where the offended party is a private individual, the prosecution need not prove the presence of malice. The law explicitly presumes its existence (malice in law) from the defamatory character of the assailed statement. For his defense, the accused must show that he has a justifiable reason for the defamatory statement even if it was in fact true.

There is “actual malice” or malice in fact when the offender makes the defamatory statement with the knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. The reckless disregard standard used here requires a high degree of awareness of probable falsity. There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the accused in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the statement he published. Gross or even extreme negligence is not sufficient to establish actual malice. 

The prosecution bears the burden of proving the presence of actual malice in instances where such element is required to establish guilt. The defense of absence of actual malice, even when the statement turns out to be false, is available where the offended party is a public official or a public figure. Since the penal code and implicitly, the cybercrime law, mainly target libel against private persons, the Supreme Court recognizes that these laws imply a stricter standard of “malice” to convict the author of a defamatory statement where the offended party is a public figure. Society’s interest and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of public affairs. 

THIRD REQUISITE: PUBLICATION

There is  publication   if the material is communicated to a third person. It is not required that the person defamed has read or heard about the libelous remark. What is material is that a third person has read or heard the libelous statement, for a man’s reputation is the estimate in which others hold him, not the good opinion which he has of himself.

Simply put, in libel, publication means making the defamatory matter, after it is written, known to someone other than the person against whom it has been written. The reason for this is that a communication of the defamatory matter to the person defamed cannot injure his reputation though it may wound his self-esteem. A man’s reputation is not the good opinion he has of himself, but the estimation in which others hold him.

FOURTH REQUISITE: IDENTIFIABILITY

On the other hand, to satisfy the element of  identifiability ,  it must be shown that at least a third person or a stranger was able to identify him as the object of the defamatory statement. It is enough if by intrinsic reference the allusion is apparent or if the publication contains matters of description or reference to facts and circumstances from which others reading the article may know the person alluded to; or if the latter is pointed out by extraneous circumstances so that those knowing such person could and did understand that he was the person referred to.

For the purpose of determining the meaning of any publication alleged to be libelous “that construction must be adopted which will give to the matter such a meaning as is natural and obvious in the plain and ordinary sense in which the public would naturally understand what was uttered. The published matter alleged to be libelous must be construed as a whole. In applying these rules to the language of an alleged libel, the court will disregard any subtle or ingenious explanation offered by the publisher on being called to account. The whole question being the effect the publication had upon the minds of the readers, and they not having been assisted by the offered explanation in reading the article, it comes too late to have the effect of removing the sting, if any there be, from the word used in the publication.

FIFTH REQUISITE: USE OF COMPUTER SYSTEM

As noted above, the cybercrime commonly called online libel, in its traditional sense, committed through a  computer system  or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.

A “computer system” is defined in R.A. 10175 as “any device or group of interconnected or related devices, one or more of which, pursuant to a program, performs automated processing of data. It covers any type of device with data processing capabilities including, but not limited to, computers and mobile phones. The device consisting of hardware and software may include input, output and storage components which may stand alone or be connected in a network or other similar devices. It also includes computer data storage devices or media.” The  Rule on Cybercrime Warrants  has a shorter definition: A computer system refers to any device or group of interconnected or related devices, one or more of which, pursuant to a program, performs automated processing of data.

APPLICATION OF PENALTY

The Supreme Court has affirmed the policy contained in its  Administrative Circular No. 08-08 , which provides for guidelines in the imposition of penalties in libel cases. It provides:

• 1. This Administrative Circular does not remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty for the crime of libel under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code;
• 2. The Judges concerned may, in the exercise of sound discretion, and taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case, determine whether the imposition of a fine alone would best serve the interests of justice or whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would depreciate the seriousness of the offense, work violence on the social order, or otherwise be contrary to the imperatives of justice;
• 3. Should only a fine be imposed and the accused be unable to pay the fine, there is no legal obstacle to the application of the  Revised Penal Code  provisions on subsidiary imprisonment.

The Supreme Court clarified that the Circular does not remove the discretion of courts to sentence to imprisonment the accused in libel cases should the circumstances warrant. In other words, judicial policy states a fine alone is generally acceptable as a penalty for libel. Nevertheless, the courts may impose imprisonment as a penalty if, under the circumstances, a fine is insufficient to meet the demands of substantial justice or would depreciate the seriousness of the offense.

[See court Decision in the online libel case against Maria Ressa and Rappler. Sources/Quotes: Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation vs. Domingo, G.R. No. 170341, 5 July 2017; Disini vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, 11 February 2014; Punongbayan-Visitacion vs. People, G.R. No. 194214, 10 January 2018]

• Recent Posts

• Extension of Filing Periods and Suspension of Hearings for March 29 to April 4, 2021: SC Administrative Circular No. 14-2021 (Full Text) - March 28, 2021
• ECQ Bubble for NCR, Bulacan, Cavite, Laguna and Rizal: Resolution No. 106-A (Full Text) - March 27, 2021
• Guidelines on the Administration of COVID-19 Vaccines in the Workplaces (Labor Advisory No. 3) - March 12, 2021
• Decision in People vs. Reynaldo Santos, Jr., Maria Angelita Ressa and Rappler, re Online Libel (Full Text)
• One-Year Prescriptive Period for Online Libel: House Bill No. 7010
• Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175): Full Text

4 thoughts on “ Online Libel as Cybercrime in the Philippines: Definition, Requisites and Application of Penalties ”

Guilty kaya si Maria Ressa bukas!

Panu po ba makakakuha ng 2nd trance ng Sap.hindi pa po kc kami na bigyan ng kahit anung ayuda.

I was sued of Cyber libel, The complainant sued me because during the pendency of an action of small claims against her. I posted in fb that she should pay her obligations. I won the small claims, however after collecting the claim . she sued me for cyber libel which dismissed in the fiscals office. However she filed on MR on the resolution. My question is, If the MR is dismiss again, what can i sue her for? do i need to wait for her to finished up to her petition for review with the doj? can i sue her for perjury or malicious prosecution? she filed it in pasig and i live in pasay , can i file in pasay?

Panu po mag file online ng cyber libe?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

AttyAtWork * VisitPinas * ChatTimeWithJulia RSS Entries and RSS Comments

• Subscribe Now

Online libel tops cybercrime cases in the Philippines for 2016

Already have Rappler+? Sign in to listen to groundbreaking journalism.

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

MANILA, Philippines – From 2013 to 2015, online scams consistently topped the list of most common cybercrimes reported to the Philippine National Police-Anti-Cybercrime Group (PNP-ACG).

But in 2016 – a year of heated political debates that also took place in cyberspace – online libel emerged as the top complaint of Filipino internet users, with 494 complaints recorded compared to 311 recorded in 2015. It comprised 26.49% of the 1,865 cybercrime complaints for 2016.

Meanwhile, online scam complaints came in at second place, with 444 complaints in 2016, up from the 334 complaints recorded in 2015.

Rounding up the top 5 complaints were identity theft, online threats, and violation of the anti-photo and video voyeurism act.

The number of complaints on online threats, online scams, and identity theft has also been increasing since 2013, based on data from the PNP-ACG.

From double-digit figures in 2013, the numbers have been steadily rising to 3-digit figures until last year.

Common modus

According to PNP-ACG Assistant Chief PSupt Jay Guillermo, online threats and libel complaints mostly make use of social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. But threats made using cellular phones, like the  “gun for hire” modus operandi  reported in recent months, also fall under their scope of investigation.

In this extortion scheme, a caller purports to be a hired assassin tapped to kill the victim and his family.

The alleged killer would then supposedly have a change of heart and would offer to call off the operation if the victim pays up.  

To some victims, the caller sounds believable because he would often have personal information on the victim to back up his claims. But Guillermo pointed out that this information could be easily obtained online.

On social media, Guillermo said those who reported receiving online threats also tend to know the person harassing them, having been in a previous relationship or involved in some degree of affinity.

Difficulty in getting evidence

How long does it take to investigate cybercrime complaints? According to Guillermo, the process differs on a case-to-case basis, and can also be dependent on the evidence gathered by investigators.

This is why complaints involving money – such as in online scams – and those with photographic evidence – such as photo and video voyeurism – tend to be easier to solve because of the wealth of evidence that could be obtained.

Online threat complaints can take months, such as in the case of climate action advocate Renee Karunungan. In May last year, she  filed 34 complaints against social media users  who harassed her online because she wrote a post critical of then-presidential candidate Rodrigo Duterte. 

Karunungan received hate messages on her Facebook account, with strangers wishing death on her and her loved ones, and some even threatening rape. (READ:  ‘Sana ma-rape ka’: Netizens bully anti-Duterte voter )

Eight months since the cases were filed, however, Karunungan said the cases remain under investigation.

For online threats and online libel, Guillermo said evidence-gathering tends to be difficult without help from telecommunications companies and internet service providers (ISPs).

“In investigating online threats, we can’t get details from telcos. Especially if [the phones used are] prepaid, it’s very hard to get information,” Guillermo said.

ISPs too do not readily provide information without a court order. But to get a court order, police would first need evidence to back up their request.

“In terms of cooperation with telcos and ISPs, we don’t have a positive reply, they’re always asking for a court order. But the requirement for a court order is having evidence before filing a case,” Guillermo said.

What it takes  

Despite this, Guillermo said cyber cops still have their own ways of investigating leads. In cases of child pornography, for instance, Guillermo said the PNP gets tips from foreign intelligence networks.

Securing digital evidence is also a challenge for the police, since it’s easy to delete incriminating posts and messages. While victims can provide screenshots of their conversations, Guillermo said investigators must do the evidence-gathering so that these would be admissible in court.

Clearing cases

Not all complaints lodged with the PNP-ACG result in an arrest, especially if they involve online threat or libel.

In these cases, Guillermo said victims usually file a complaint just to have a record of the case. The evidence gathered by investigators is then turned over to prosecutors, who take charge of the case.

At this level, getting results may take months, and some victims choose to withdraw especially if money is not involved in their complaints.

Of the 1,804 complaints recorded by the PNP-ACG between January to November 2016, only 4.66% – 84 cases – have reached the prosecutor’s office. 728 cases (40.35%) have been cleared or closed, while 928 cases (51.44%) remain under investigation. 

Meanwhile, 40 police operations last year resulted in the arrest of 150 individuals, most of whom were involved in extortion, cybersex operations, and violation of the anti-photo and video voyeurism act. These operations resulted in the filing of 61 cases and the rescue of 6 minors.

With cybercrime cases on the rise, Guillermo advises the public to exercise caution online and to immediately report cases to the cybercrime units or to local police. (READ:  How to protect your computer vs cyberattacks )  –  Rappler.com

Add a comment

Please abide by Rappler's commenting guidelines .

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

How does this make you feel?

Related Topics

Recommended stories, {{ item.sitename }}, {{ item.title }}.

Checking your Rappler+ subscription...

Upgrade to Rappler+ for exclusive content and unlimited access.

Why is it important to subscribe? Learn more

You are subscribed to Rappler+

80 alleged cybercrime perpetrators exploiting pandemic face raps: PNP

ADVERTISEMENT