How Adoption laws are construed
Evidence allowed in First Level Courts in Criminal Cases
A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, or the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases provides that: ” In criminal cases before First Level Courts (i.e. Municipal and Metropolitan Trial Courts, etc.), witness testimonies shall consist of (i) duly subscribed written statements given to law enforcement officers; or (ii) affidavits or counter-affidavits submitted during preliminary investigation; or (iii) if (i) and (ii) are not available, judicial affidavits.”
Authority to Prosecute Criminal Cases
In cases where only the civil liability is being prosecuted by a private prosecutor, the head of the prosecution office must issue in favor of the private prosecutor a written authority to try the case even in the absence of the public prosecutor. The written authority must be submitted to the court prior to the presentation of evidence by the private prosecutor in accordance with Sec. 5, Rule 110. With this authority on record, the court may set the trial in the case and in other cases tried by private prosecutors with delegated authority on separate days when the presence of the public prosecutor may be dispensed with.
When Role Playing can land you in Jail
Edwin and Leah are a young adventurous couple in their mid-20s.
Wanting to add spice to their sex life, they decided to venture into role playing. Enjoying this fetish, the couple took photos and videos of themselves in various state of undress and having sex. In some of the photos depicting sexual intercourse, Leah was presented as a scantily- dressed teenage school girl. These sexual adventures continued until Edwin caught Leah with another man. He was so enraged that he shared Leah’s nude photos and their sexual encounter with his friends: Bobby, Rommel and Jerry via MMS and email. Included were photos of Leah role-playing as a teenage school girl. When Leah knew about that her nude photos were shared and already in the possession of Edwin’s friends, she alerted the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Cyber Crime Division. Soon an entrapment operation was hatched and Edwin and his friends were caught with Leah’s nude photos in their cellular phones and computers.
The public prosecutor charged Edwin, Bobby, Rommel and Jerry with Syndicated Child Pornography as defined by Republic Act 9775 or the “Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009.” In their defense, all the respondents reasoned that Leah was no longer a minor when her nude photos were taken. She was already 24 years old.
Is this a valid defense?
No. Even if the person whose nude photos are subject of the crime, is no longer a minor at the time it was taken, it may still be considered child pornography. This is because Section 3 (a) 1 of RA 9775 provides when a person regardless of age is presented, depicted or portrayed as a child in photos or videos, he or she is still considered a child for intents and purposes of said law. If these photos or videos depicts or shows said person engaged or involved in real or simulated explicit sexual activities like sexual intercourse, these can be considered as child pornography .
As for Edwin, Bobby, Rommel and Jerry, they are liable for child pornography under Section 4 paragraphs c, j and l, for sharing, willfully accessing and possessing child pornography. To make matters worse, since the violation was carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another, it is deemed syndicated child pornography under Section 5. This carries a penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of not less than Two million pesos (Php2,000,000.00) but not more than Five million pesos (Php5,000,000.00).
Causing Dela Cruz Law Office 