I take it back.
In my previous post, I have mentioned that the onslaught of new technologies spawns new types of crimes. However, if one really digs deeper, crimes that may be committed are not entirely new. People are just provided with a new mode of committing them-technology.
Perhaps such misconception is shared by the drafters of the Cybercrime Bill, listing the acts considered as ‘cybercrimes’: Illegal Access, Illegal Interception, Data Interference, System Interference, Misuse of Devices, Computer Forgery, Computer Fraud, Unsolicited Commercial Communications and so on (SB Draft Chapter II, Section 4). All these are not to be found in the Revised Penal Code. But then, in the same act, it can be shown that those who thought up of the bill, also realizes, in the latter part, that indeed, Cybercrimes are not new crimes. They are old crimes recognized by the Revised Penal Code, as well as special laws in force. Child pornography through the Internet, which is penalized under this Act, is proof of such contention.
I believe that in crafting laws for cybercrime, such misconception must be done away with. There may be serious repercussions that will denigrate the very essence of law and its objective- to deliver justice where it is due.
Take for example, the cybercrime of data interference. Supposing a person, (let’s name him Marlon) intentionally altered computer data, without having the right to do so. He did this to kill his nemesis, Joey, his rival to Jodie’s (his fictional dream girl's) heart. He had all of Joey's records mixed up so the database would show an erroneous medication prescription. The said databank was used by the nurse or hospital worker as basis for the type of medicine that they will give Joey. Upon receiving the said medicine, Joey takes it, and dies in the process. Such is a classic case of murder, not bloody though, but squeaky clean, through the flick of the fingertips on the keyboard. (Example taken from Susan Brenner's article, Cybercrime Investigation and Prosecution: The Role of Penal and Procedural Law)
On the other hand, Mikey, the pimp, puts his favorite pre-teener, Sarah on a website, having sex with a graying old man and a horse. (What could be more sexually explicit than that?)
Under the said draft in the penalties section (Chapter III), Marlon, for having committed the crime of data interference, shall be punished with imprisonment of prision correccional or a fine of at least one hundred thousand pesos (PhP100,000.00) but not exceeding six hundred thousand pesos (PhP600,000.00) or both fine and imprisonment. Whereas, Mikey will be punished for violation of Section 5 which would cost him imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of at least two hundred thousand pesos (PhP200,000.00) but not exceeding eight hundred thousand pesos (PhP800,000.00) or both fine and imprisonment.
Although they are both heinous ( in my opinion) child pornography incurs a higher penalty under this act. Under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for murder with no aggravating or mitigating circumstances proven by the prosecution would be reclusion perpetua (People vs. Valledor; G.R. No. 129291 ), which is a far cry from prision correccional or the fine imposed in the SB draft.
To be more clear on it, let's take one more example. Suppose Anna commits data interference to deliver a threat on the life of her ex-girlfriend, Leticia, just for the fun of it. She will be punished the same way as Marlon did for the same crime: data interference, although, as it is as clear as day, you will see that Marlon's committing data interference to murder Joey deserves a higher punishment than Anna's performance of said cybercrime to threaten Leticia.
I was wrong earlier in saying that new technologies create new crimes. I come out and say it because it is true. Hopefully, such realization may also be taken note of in the continuous fashioning of the Cybercrime laws so that law may serve its ultimate purpose, to give justice for all.
No comments:
Post a Comment