Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Recommendation of Prosecutor's Office to FILE against the accused

(5) Misuse of Devices.


(i) The use, production, sale, procurement, importation, distribution, or otherwise making available,
without right, of:
(aa) A device, including a computer program, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of
committing any of the offenses under this Act; or
(bb) A computer password, access code, or similar data by which the whole or any part of a computer
system is capable of being accessed with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing any of the
offenses under this Act.

(2) Computer-related Fraud. The unauthorized input, alteration, or deletion of computer data or
program or interference in the functioning of a computer system, causing damage thereby with
fraudulent intent: Provided, That if no
damage has yet been caused, the penalty imposable shall be one (1) degree lower.

Possible basis for MR


1. The device / computer program is not designed or adapted primarily for the
purpose of committing any of the offenses under this Act. The purpose is to reset /
modify the player's accounts. It's part of the job.

2. The voluntary giving of the password by the account's previous owner is not
unauthorized. He has given his consent voluntarily as shown by the chat with
Michael.

3. The company needed to show the surveillance logs and DNS records to prove
that the accused did accessed the accounts using the corporate computer or
network.

G.R. No. 203335 February 11, 2014

Desini vs Sec.of Justice (separate Opinion of Justice Leonen)


TCP/IP addressed the need for connected devices to have a unique identification
and designation. But, to make these addresses accessible and readable to its
human users, domain names were introduced. Internet addresses are now also
written as domain names under what is known as the Domain Name System
(DNS).

3. traffic data is needed to trace the source of a communication as a starting point, which was not
present in this case.

G.R. No. 203335 February 11, 2014

Desini vs Sec.of Justice

Cybercrime Prevention Act was patterned after the convention (Budapest Convention on Cybercrime )

29. In case of an investigation of a criminal offence committed in relation to a computer system, traffic data

is needed to trace the source of a communication as a starting point for collecting further evidence or

as part of the evidence of the offence. Traffic data might last only ephemerally, which makes it necessary to

order its expeditious preservation. Consequently, its rapid disclosure may be necessary to discern the

communications route in order to collect further evidence before it is deleted or to identify a suspect. The

ordinary procedure for the collection and disclosure of computer data might therefore be insufficient.

Moreover, the collection of this data is regarded in principle to be less intrusive since as such it doesnt

reveal the content of the communication which is regarded to be more sensitive.

4. Any violation of RA 10175 must be handled by a cybercrime unit or center


manned by special investigators. The present case does not show that it was
handled by such unit.

RA 10175 CHAPTER IV
ENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

SEC. 10. Law Enforcement Authorities. The National Bureau of


Investigation (NBI) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) shall be

responsible for the efficient and effective law enforcement of the

provisions of this Act. 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.

5. No IRR was formulated by DOST, DOJ and DILG to implement the provisions of RA
10175. Sec. 28 of RA 10175 mandates the formulation of such IRR as designated by the
word SHALL.

RA 10175 CHAPTER VIII


FINAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 28. Implementing Rules and Regulations. The ICTO-

DOST, the DOJ and the Department of the Interior and Local

Government (DILG) shall jointly formulate the necessary

rules and regulations within ninety (90) days from

approval of this Act, for its effective implementation.

6. The IRR is mandatory to guide to guide executive officials how to implement the law, as
well as to guide the public how to comply with the law.

G.R. No. 166715 - ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST, et al., Petitioners, v. HON.
CESAR V. PURISIMA, et al., Respondents. (Separate Concurring Opinion of Justice Carpio)
Implementation of the law is indisputably an Executive function. To implement the law,
the Executive must necessarily adopt implementing rules to guide executive officials
how to implement the law, as well as to guide the public how to comply with the
law. These guidelines, known as implementing rules and regulations, can only emanate
from the Executive because the Executive is vested with the power to implement the
law. Implementing rules and regulations are the means and methods on how the Executive
will execute the law after the Legislature has enacted the law.

The Executive cannot implement the law without adopting implementing rules and
regulations. The power of the Executive to implement the law necessarily includes all
power necessary and proper[1] to implement the law, including the power to adopt
implementing rules and regulations. The grant of executive power to the President in the
Constitution is a grant of all executive power. [2] The power to adopt implementing rules is
thus inherent in the power to implement the law. The power to adopt implementing rules
and regulations is law-execution, not law-making. [3] Within the sphere of its constitutional
mandate to execute the law, the Executive possesses the power to adopt implementing rules
to carry out its Executive function. This applies also to the Judiciary, which also possesses
the inherent power to adopt rules to carry out its Judicial function.

[1] Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, 15 September 1989, 177 SCRA 668, and 27 October 1989, 178 SCRA 760. In

resolving the motion for reconsideration, the Court citedMyers v. United States (272 U.S. 52 [1926]) where Chief Justice

William H. Taft (a former U.S. President and Governor-General of the Philippines), writing for the majority, ruled: The true

view of the Executive function is x x x that the President can exercise no power which cannot be fairly and reasonably

traced to some specific grant of power or justly implied and included within such express grant as necessary and

proper for its exercise. The principle that power can be implied if necessary and proper to carry out a power expressly

granted in the Constitution is now a well-settled doctrine.


[2] Ibid. Section 1, Article VII of the Constitution provides: The executive power shall be vested in the President of the
Philippines.
[3] Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES:
A COMMENTARY, 612 (1996).

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen