AP reported on Feb. 9 that a woman in Wyoming was raped after her ex posted sex invites in the internet for her. This reminded me of the story that Sir Rudy told us at the beginning of the sem. It turned out that the woman’s ex pretended to be her and claimed that she has fantasies of getting raped and assaulted. A man attacked the woman in her front door and raped her in her living room at knifepoint. Her assailant said that it was invited. Several days before the incident, the woman complained of a phony Craiglist ad about her containing pictures and personal information, which read: "Need a real aggressive man with no concern for women." Craiglist took the ad down after that, but apparently it was too late already. The woman’s ex was also charged with rape.
The report was quite scary, given that it’s now so easy to obtain information about a person in the internet, and much easier to pretend to be someoneelse. If the incident occurred here in the Philippines, the woman’s ex would be indicted as principal for rape by inducement (I think). But I there should be a separate criminal liability for assumption of identity of another individual (other than a public officer), which assumption caused damage to the other person. If the crime happened in our jurisdiction, I wonder if the ex could also be held liable under Art. 318 (other deceits) of the RPC, the first paragraph of which reads:
“The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of not less than the amount of the damage caused and not more than twice such amount shall be imposed upon any person who shall defraud or damage another by any other deceit not mentioned in the preceding articles of this chapter.”
My question is this: Does the fraud or deceit in estafa need to be directed to the private complainant (the one who incurred damage because of the assumption of identity)? Also, can identity be classified as property? Since in criminal cases, the aggrieved party is ultimately the state, I posit that the person whose identity was assumed may file a criminal complaint against the person who took on her identity eventhough the fraud or deceit wasn’t directed at her specifically. I submit, too, that identity is a property of the person and a person has a right over said property the violation of which demands redress from the law.
I’m not sure if there’s a provision concerning this in the cybercrime bill which was passed by the House. But I think it is imperative that our lawmakers contemplate on this because of the terrible damage that it could cause to individuals.
Link to the news article: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Woman-raped-after-ex-posts-sex-invite-on-internet/articleshow/5550156.cms
2 comments:
The crime needs no further definition in any law.
The crime is rape. And the one who posted the invitation may be liable as principal by inducement.
The so-called invitation over the internet is never an excuse. Because the most important event is that on the specific day and time, the victim refused to have carnal knowledge with the other person, and despite this refusal, the perpetrator still committed the heinous act.
As for separate liability, the man who induced and the one who committed the act, may be held in violation of VAWC, a special law. I dont think there is further need for another law though. We have so many laws already!!! What we need is speedy justice. It is certainty of punishment that is more crucial than multiple liability.
crazy people do crazy things. and the internet is just one of the media they can express their craziness.
i heard that there is a game in twitter where they post clues/pics to their whereabouts and people guess where they are. a person setup a site called robmyhouse that links twitter posts on this game to emphasize that posting your whereabouts can make it easier for criminals to rob your house.
Post a Comment