Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
Case: First stock broker found guilty of securities fraud fined P2M
MANILA, Philippines — The president of a stock brokerage house was fined P2.1 million by a Makati regional trial court after he was found guilty of defrauding his clients in violation of the Securities Regulation Code (SRC), the first conviction secured by the government almost 13 years after the law was enacted.
The Department of Justice relayed to reporters the case of Francisco Borromeo, president of Asian Capital Equity Inc., (ACEI), who was found guilty on March 19 by branch 62 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City of seven counts of violation of the SRC, mostly involving fraudulent acts he committed between August 1993 and November 2003.
Borromeo had been charged with violations of the Republic Act. No. 8799 in seven information filed by the DOJ’s National Prosecution Office and the Enforcement and Prosecution Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
He was charged of five counts of fraudulent transactions from 2000 to 2003 for selling and trading the shares of his clients without their knowledge; using a fictitious and dummy account in the selling of securities, all to the prejudice of his clients and the investing public.
Borromeo was also charged with one count of unlawfully preparing, using and maintaining two sets of books—one that contains the actual database of ACEI’s negative position and another that contains the altered database to comply with the audit requirement of the Philippine Stock Exchange and SEC.
Borromeo pleaded not guilty on all seven pieces of information against him in 2007.
But last March 19, he expressed his desire to withdraw his not guilty plea and instead to plead guilty.
State Prosecutor Peter Ong did not object and Borromeo was arraigned anew this time pleading guilty to all seven information.
In a four-page decision by Presiding Judge Selma Palacio Alaras, the trial court then found Borromeo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of the SRC. He was sentenced to pay the fine of P300,000 for each count or a total of P2.1 million.
“In the event of failure to pay the fine, he is ordered to suffer a subsidiary imprisonment corresponding to the fine adjudged,” the court said.
The Philippine Law that I’ll apply in this dilemma/issue is Unfair Competition and the agency that I’ll implement is Department of Justice.
Piracy The practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea. A similar practice in other contexts, esp. hijacking. The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy. The operation of an unlicensed, illegal radio or television station.
Case: Hold Departure Order Looms Over IP Infringers
Friday, June 14, 2013
June 14, 2013 Manila, Philippines- In the last week of May, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted raids on various establishments in Cebu City, where three hardware retailers, namely Nutech, MSi and Across Technology, were found to be hard loading several branded computers with illegal software. Four other hardware businesses, namely Cardinal Audio Center, PC Chain Superstore, PC Gadgets & Mobile Hub and Acenet Unlimited Business Computer Inc., were likewise found infringing copies of Microsoft programs in a similar raid operation conducted by the NBI last November 2012. Hard-disk loading is a form of software piracy where resellers of computer hardware load unauthorized copies of software onto the machines they sell. During the Visayas crackdown of the Pilipinas Anti-piracy Team (PAPT), a few number of branded computers were found to be hard loaded with pirated software were two Acer laptops, three Lenovo computers and one Samsung laptop.
Previously, a Hold Departure Order was issued against Mr. Winston dela Torre Novo, who is the owner sof PC Republic Enterprises, after he went into hiding following the filing of a criminal case against him for suspected copyright infringement, and was arrested last April by officers of the National Bureau of Investigation. A Hold Departure Order (HDO) restrains and bans all accused who have pending criminal charges from overseas travel. Copyright infringers may also be subjected to tax investigations and tax evasion charges for selling and using pirated software. This could be followed by the cancellation of their business permits and have their US visa revoked or questioned for eligibility.
The possibility of not being able to travel to the United States was further confirmed in a speech by U.S. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Assistant Attaché Mitchell Worley at the 2nd Philippine Anti-Piracy and Counterfeiting Summit held last October wherein Worley cited President Barack Obama’s commitment in ensuring a level playing field by not tolerating unfair business practices such as piracy and counterfeiting and keeping software criminals out of the United States as software piracy is considered a crime.
“Business operators should know that use of unauthorized software is a crime and that unauthorized users run the risk of facing criminal charges. In addition, the use of pirated software can expose users to malware and virus attacks that can compromise privacy and security,” Said Atty. Dante Jacinto, Chief of Intellectual Property Rights Division of the NBI. “This is why all businesses are encouraged to use only genuine software to avoid further complications that could affect business operations,” Atty. Jacinto added.
To strengthen the protection of the intellectual property in the country, the PAPT will continue to enforce its campaigns against software piracy in South Metro and other nearby provinces. The National Bureau of Investigation aims to continue its raids, to ensure that businesses are using genuine software.
The NBI is a member of the PAPT together with the IPOPHL, OMB and the PNP. The team was formed in 2005 to establish an integrated and coordinated effort by the government to counteract the negative effects of software piracy on the local IT industry and the economy.
The Philippine Law that I’ll apply in this dilemma/issue is Intellectual Property rights and the agency that I’ll implement is National Bureau of Investigation.
Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, or traducement—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal action to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.
Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and have been made to someone other than the person defamed. Some common law jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel.
Online Defamation libelous remarks about a person’s character, namely malicious, unsubstantiated statements would fall under the heading of “online defamation.” When I learned about this as a Journalism Major at Western Washington University, it fell under the heading of “libel,” rather than “slander,” (i.e., speaking maliciously about a person, as opposed to writing about a person in that manner). The Internet did not exist yet when I studied this, but I think the same laws would apply. One would have grounds for a lawsuit if remarks were made about them that were defaming to their character online. Celebrities would have to prove there was malice as well as defamation in order to win a lawsuit of this type as they are considered to be in the public eye (i.e., politicians, famous artists, etc.).
Case: CA affirms libel case vs. teen blogger for ‘maligning’ another girl
8:29 pm | Sunday, February 3rd, 2013
MANILA, Philippines — The Court of Appeals (CA) has upheld a decision by a Marikina Regional Trial Court (RTC) to proceed with a libel case and the issuance of arrest warrants against a minor and five other persons for alleged defamatory posts on a social networking site.
In an 11-page decision dated Dec. 28, 2012, recently posted on its website, the CA Special Ninth Division dismissed the petition of the girl, a minor identified only as JRV CICL-IS-NO. 08-1614, for a review of the RTC branch 192 ruling early last year. The petitioner said the judge committed “grave abuse of discretion.”
The CA decision paves the way for trial on the merits of the libel case even as the Supreme Court deliberates on the constitutionality of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which essentially penalizes malicious posts on such sites as Facebook and Twitter, among many others.
On March 13, 2012, an information for libel was filed in the RTC against teenager blogger, as well as Justine Dimaano, Francesa Vanessa Fugen, Roberto Armando Hidalgo, Danielle Vicaldo and Anthony Jay Foronda. The group was accused by Celine Quanico of maligning her on a blog posted by Dimaano on April 6, 2008, on the website Multiply.
Quanico said that Dimaano put a Yahoo Messenger conversation between them on her blog she titled “Meet My Backstabber Friend” but “edited” her chat name into “Jopay.”
She said several persons commented on the blog “further mocking me with contempt and insults.”
“Worse, details of confirming my identity were placed, like deliberate and obvious hints in a sarcastic fashion of a futile attempt to cover up,” Quanico said.
One of those who commented was JRV who referred to the object of the blog as a “bitch” and other derogatory names.
The libel charge against JRV and her co-accused was based on the March 24, 2011, recommendation of the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Quanico went to the DOJ after a Marikina prosecutor dismissed her libel complaint in August 2009. The prosecutor said malice could not be inferred and that there was no clear reference to the complainant as the object of the blog.
The DOJ reversed the prosecutor’s findings and noted that “all the elements of libel” were present in the case.
“Calling a person ‘backstabber,’ ‘ugly,’ ‘frikin face,’ ‘mother frikin dead kid,’ ‘loser,’ ‘bakla,’ ‘bitch,’ ‘ass’ and ‘liar’ within the knowledge of other persons is defamatory because there is an imputation of a condition or a status, which tends to cause dishonor or contempt of the offended party,” the DOJ said.
The department also held it clear that the “imputation was directed”’ at Quanico, contrary to the prosecutor’s position.
“Basic is the rule that in order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable, although it is not necessary that she be named,” it said.
The DOJ also noted that the affidavits of three witnesses of Quanico “reveal that they recognized her as the object of the libelous statements not only probably but with a high level of certainty.”
Likewise, it noted that the facts and circumstances stated on the blog “perfectly fit the description of the complainant.”
On May 6, 2012, the Marikina RTC found probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants against JRV and her co-accused. It also denied a motion for reconsideration filed by JRV.
In her petition for certiorari in the CA, JRV accused the RTC of grave abuse of discretion. She argued that the words “bitch” and “f*ck” were not libelous; that the blog did not give sufficient description to identify Jopay as private respondent Quanico and that she was 16 years old when the alleged offense was committed.
But in its ruling penned by Associate Justice Mario Lopez, the appellate court said JRV’s petition was “bereft of merit.”
“Probable cause is such set of facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the offense charged in the information or any offense included therein has been committed by the person sought to be arrested,” the CA said.
In this case, the appellate court noted the RTC judge made the finding of probable cause after examining documents submitted by the DOJ and the city prosecutor.
The CA observed that JRV “never questioned how the trial court reached the conclusion that there was probable cause,” only questioned its conclusion.
“In other words, petitioner is merely questioning the trial court’s evaluation of evidence or its factual findings which, we reiterate, are not within the ambit of a petition for certiorari,” it said.
On JRV’s statement that she was a minor when the alleged offense was committed and, thus, should be protected under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, the CA noted the city prosecutor’s certification that the accused “acted with discernment.”
Associate Justices Romeo Barza and Socorro Inting agreed with the decision.
The Philippine Laws that I’ll apply in this dilemma/issue is Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2010, E-Commerce Law, Intellectual Property Rights, Civil Code and the agency that I’ll implement is Department of Justice.
A teleconference or teleseminar is the live exchange and mass articulation of information among several persons and machines remote from one another but linked by a telecommunications system. Terms such as audio conferencing, telephone conferencing and phone conferencing are also sometimes used to refer to teleconferencing.
The telecommunications system may support the teleconference by providing one or more of the following: audio, video, and/or data services by one or more means, such as telephone, computer, telegraph, teletypewriter, radio, and television.
Internet teleconferencing includes internet telephone conferencing, videoconferencing, web conferencing, and Augmented Reality conferencing.
Internet telephony involves conducting a teleconference over the Internet or a Wide Area Network. One key technology in this area is Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP). Popular software for personal use includes Skype, Google Talk, Windows Live Messenger and Yahoo! Messenger.
Case: Globe Business offers futuristic conferencing solutions
(The Philippine Star) | Updated December 24, 2012 – 12:00am
MANILA, Philippines – Crucial business decisions depend on quick communication and coordination but in this world where business is conducted globally, with business partners in many separate locations, is there a way to make meetings and conferences more efficient, more timely, more affordable and less stressful?
The traditional way is for business associates to travel to a set location for their meetings. This is not always the best option, however. Traffic, airport delays, the high cost of travel, and even natural disasters are factors that make traveling for business impractical in many cases.
Nowadays, traveling to a meeting could mean added cost in terms of time, stress, and money. The best solution, of course, is to allow business partners to communicate while staying in their own locations.
Teleconferencing: A new level
Globe Business uses the latest in telecom technology to make teleconferencing faster, with greater clarity, reliability and depth, and at a more affordable cost.
“Globe Business has a set of services we call ‘Collaboration Solutions.’ These are various types of audio and video conferencing options that businesses can avail themselves of to get their meetings done quickly and conveniently — so they can make faster, better decisions, get desired results quicker, and meet their goals,” said Manny Escosa, Globe Business marketing head for small and medium business segments.
“The high level of telecom technology we have today makes teleconferencing an even more viable option, compared to actual physical travel for business, than it was 10 or even five years ago. Business travel may not become totally unnecessary but with Globe Business Collaborative Solutions, companies can significantly cut down on the business trips they need to make. This saves time, effort, and money,” Escosa said.
All offices have handy communication devices: the landline and the mobile phone. With Globe Business Audio Conferencing, these existing devices can be networked to create a conference call network between business colleagues and/or their customers and suppliers.
With Globe Audio Conferencing, business communication is enhanced so that ideas are exchanged quickly and easily. It also eliminates the need to travel and meet with business associates in different locations.
The next level of collaboration facilitated by Globe Business is the Globe Business Web Conferencing service. This solution combines desktop sharing through Web browser, video streaming, and phone (mobile and landline) conferencing to allow communication between business partners, customers and suppliers. Participants in the conference have the advantage of seeing and hearing one another.
Globe Business Telepresence
The most advanced level of Globe Business Collaboration Solutions is Globe Business Telepresence. This uses advanced collaboration technology — including high-definition video and spatial discrete audio — to create “virtual presences” or life-sized images of the conference participants.
It’s the closest thing to an in-person experience. Conference participants feel that they are interacting with each other, in-person, inside one room. They can make eye contact with each other. The life-size images display smooth and realistic motion, so that gestures and facial expressions look clear and natural. The advanced audio makes sounds natural and in-sync with the video images.
The experience of using Globe Business Telepresence is life-like and simple, so participants can engage each other for several hours in close interaction without feeling fatigued. This solution is best used during critical negotiations, when meeting participants from different cultures, and for information sharing between experts.
Discover futuristic, reliable, efficient, and effective teleconferencing options with these Globe Business Collaboration solutions. Consult a Globe Business account manager, visit Globe stores, call the Globe Business hotline at +632 730-1010 or log on to http: / / www.globe.com.ph/business to find out more.
Globe Business, the corporate arm of Globe Telecom, provides wireless and wireline solutions for a diverse set of industries, businesses, and commercial enterprises.
The Philippine Laws that I’ll apply in this dilemma/issue is Intellectual Property rights, E-Commerce Law and Unfair Competition and the agency that I’ll implement is Commission on Information & Communication Technology.