Photo from Unsplash | Caleb Woods
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
The Supreme Court sends a strong message that child pornography, among other forms of sexual exploitation and abuse, presents an acute danger worldwide if facilitated through the internet. The sexually explicit images and videos of innocent children circulating online is a mode of re-victimization that traps them in a cycle of extreme, permanent, and continuing emotional and psychological torture that they will deeply suffer until their adult years. (People of the Philippines v. YYY, G.R. No. 262941. February 20, 2024)
Child Pornography is defined under Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 9775 or otherwise known as the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 to refer to any representation, whether visual, audio, or written combination thereof, by electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any other means, of a child engaged or involved in real or simulated explicit sexual activities.
In the case of Cadajas y Cabias v. People, G.R. No. 247348, November 16, 2021, the Supreme Court quoted the ratification speech of the Principal Author of the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 who explained the need for the promulgation of this law, to wit:
“This Bill is much awaited by all the sectors involved in the protection and promotion of the rights of children not only in the Philippines but also in the international community, and, I believe, by the children themselves whose voices resonate in the silence of their hearts and in the equanimity of their spirits. Knowing how this bill could be of great consequence to the building of their self-worth and the realization of their hope for a bright future, this representation takes pride in sponsoring this noble piece of legislation in support of their call to stop the menace of child pornography. Evidently, child pornography is such a disgusting crime which operates with surprising efficiency, swiftness and dispatch as it rides along with technologically advanced communication highways such as the internet.
What appalls us more is the fact that such meaningless violence against the honor and dignity of our children knows no boundaries: political or geographical. Child pornography transcends national and international boundaries even without actual physical movement of children from one place of victimization to another. Verily, while it could be done in the secrecy of her room and abode, its evil resounds in every corner of society.”
In People of the Philippines v. YYY, G.R. No. 262941. February 20, 2024, the accused was charged with violations of the Anti-Child Pornography Act after the United States of America (USA) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) tracked the electronic emails of YYY and obtained nude photos of minor girls being sold to online male customers.
Following a tip from the FBI, the Philippine National Police (PNP), conducted a surveillance and proceeded to YYY’s house and posed as buyers. YYY introduced herself as owner of the property and invited the PNP for a house tour wherein they saw minor girls, a computer set with a webcam, a vibrator, and children’s panties.
Armed with a search warrant, the police officers, together with barangay officials, proceeded to the house of YYY and searched for items related to child pornography. The police were able to inventory the confiscated items in the presence of YYY, her live-in partner, and the barangay officials who attested that the search was made in a lawful, peaceful, and orderly manner. The authorities also rescued three minor children, namely, AAA, BBB, and CCC and handed them to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).
Accordingly, the operatives charged YYY with violation of Sections 4 (a), (b), and (c) of Republic Act No. 9775, in relation to Section 16 of the same law and Section 4 (c) (2) of Republic Act No. 10175 before the RTC. YYY pleaded not guilty and denied the accusation claiming that police officers and a DSWD social worker barged in her house on August 16, 2016 and forcibly took the three children from her custody and that the operatives fabricated charges of child pornography and cybercrime offenses against her.
RTC convicted YYY of child pornography qualified with the use of a computer system.
YYY elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) and reiterated her defense of denial and maintained that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of child pornography. Moreover, YYY argued that the Information was defective due to uncertainty regarding the date of commission of the crime. YYY added that the seized items were inadmissible in evidence because the police officers illegally secured and enforced the search warrant. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision that YYY is guilty of child pornography with the use of a computer system.
Hence, YYY appealed to the SC.
Effect of Republic Act No. 11930
The Supreme Court held that as a rule, the explicit, categorical, definite, and absolute repeal of a penal law deprives the courts of their authority to punish an accused charged with a violation of the old law prior to its repeal. The unqualified repeal of a penal law renders legal what had been previously declared as illegal. Differently stated, the offense no longer exists as if the person who committed it never did so.
However, the rule is subject to exceptions. One is the inclusion of a saving clause in the repealing law which provides that the repeal shall have no effect on pending actions. Another exception is where the repealing law reenacts the former statute and punishes the act previously penalized under the old law. In such instances, the act committed before the reenactment continues to be an offense in the statute books and pending cases are not affected, regardless of whether the new penalty to be imposed is more favorable to the accused.
In this case, YYY allegedly committed the crime charged in August 2016 when the prevailing law is Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009. On July 30, 2022, the Congress enacted Republic Act No. 11930 or the Anti-Online Sexual Abuse or Exploitation of Children (OSAEC) and Anti-Child Sexual Abuse or Exploitation Materials (CSAEM) Act. Notably, Republic Act No. 11930 expressly repealed the entire Republic Act No. 9775.
Obviously, even without a saving clause, the reenactment in Republic Act No. 11930 of prohibited acts considered as child pornography manifests the legislative intent to reserve the right of the State to prosecute and punish offenses in the repealed Republic Act No. 9775. The reenactment in Republic Act No. 11930 neutralizes the repeal and continues the criminal liability for transgressions of Republic Act No. 9775 without interruption. Corollarily, the courts retain the jurisdiction to decide pending criminal cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 9775 committed prior to its repeal.
Liability of YYY
The Court found all the elements of child pornography under the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 present in YYY’s case.
The crime of child pornography under Sections 4 (a), (b), and (c) of Republic Act No. 9775 has the following elements:
- the victim is a child;
- the offender either:
- hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce a child to perform in the creation or production of any form of child pornography; or
- produce, direct, manufacture or create any form of child pornography; or
- publish, offer, transmit, sell, distribute, broadcast, advertise, promote, export or import any form of child pornography; and
- the child’s sexual activities were represented through visual, audio, or written combination, by electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic, or any other means.
In the case of YYY, prosecution established AAA’s minority with the presentation of her original certificate of live birth stating that she was born on November 1, 2009. Thus, AAA was only 6 years old at the time of the incident in August 2016, and is considered a child within the protective mantle of the law. AAA also positively identified her aunt accused-appellant as the person who exploited her for pornography. AAA vividly recounted how accused-appellant ordered her to remove her clothes and stand naked while touching her genitalia in front of a computer exposing her private parts to male customers watching online.
Clearly, YYY committed the prohibited acts in Republic Act No. 9775 when she persuaded, induced, and coerced her niece AAA to perform in the creation of nude photos and videos, and when she subsequently offered to sell these child pornographic materials.
The Supreme Court in the case of People v. YYY held that there is overwhelming evidence that YYY is guilty of child pornography with the use of a computer system.
In its conclusion, the Court stated:
“On a final note, the Court sends a strong message that child pornography, among other forms of sexual exploitation and abuse, presents an acute danger worldwide if facilitated through the internet. The sexually explicit images and videos of innocent children circulating online is a mode of re-victimization that traps them in a cycle of extreme, permanent, and continuing emotional and psychological torture that they will deeply suffer until their adult years.”
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.