Legal Counsel

Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 (RA 9995)

Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 (RA 9995)

SHARE
, / 9643 17
Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 (RA 9995)

The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 was passed as a solution to prevent the proliferation of scandals the most notable of which is the the one which involved Dr. Hayden Kho, Dr. Maricar Reyes as well as actress Katrina Halili. The law itself provides that its main objective is to penalize acts that will destroy the honor, integrity and dignity of a person.

If you find yourself being a victim of perverts who took a photo or video of your private part or your intercourse, make sure to read the provision of this law because this will be your main weapon against these scums of the society. The provisions of the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 are simplified below so that it may be easily understood, thus:

 

What acts are prohibited under the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009?

1.  To:

  • take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or
  • an image of the private area of a person/s such as the naked or the undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breasts

when

  • without the consent of person/s involved and
  • under circumstances in which the person/s has/have reasonable expectation of privacy

2. To:

  • copy or reproduce, or
  • cause to be copied or reproduced,

such photo or video or recording of sexual act, whether it be:

  • the original copy or
  • reproduction thereof

3. To:

  • sell or distribute, or
  • cause to be copied or reproduced,

such photo or video or recording of sexual act, whether it be:

  • the original copy or
  • reproduction thereof

4. To:

  • publish or broadcast, or
  • cause to be published or broadcast

whether in:

- print, or

- broadcast media

  • show or exhibit

the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or any similar activity

through:

-  VCD/DVD

-  Internet

-  Cellular phones

-  Other similar means and devices

 

Will a person be held liable in case the victim gave his/her consent to record or take photo or video coverage?

The prohibitions shall apply notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage was given.

What are the penalties for violation of the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009?

At the discretion of the Court, it may impose upon any person found violating the said law the following penalties:

If the offender is a natural person

  • imprisonment of not less than three (3) years but not more than seven (7) years, and
  • a fine of not less than Php100,000.00 but not more than Php500,000.00, or
  • both imprisonment and fine

If the offender is a juridical person:

  • it’s license or franchise shall be automatically deemed revoked, and
  • the persons liable shall be the officers, including:

If the offender is a public officer or employee or a professional:

  • he/shall shall be administratively liable

If the offender is an alien:

  • he/she shall be subject to deportation proceedings after serving his/her sentence and payment of fines

What are the exemptions to this law?

 

A peace officer who is authorized by written order of the court, to use the record or any copy thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of the crime of photo or video voyeurism

Provided the following conditions are met;

  • the written order shall only be granted upon written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he/she may produce, and
  • upon showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that photo or video voyeurism has been committed or is about to be committed, and
  • the evidence to be obtained is essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution or prevention of such crime

17 Comments

  • Ruth Ranara says:

    this is a good development, James

  • alexis says:

    hi, i would like to know, if what are the exemptions,like for example,if the suspect is mentaly retarded, immature, what other elese that could make the suspect not go to jail or pay the fine? thank you .

  • allan says:

    panero, what is the territorial jurisdiction of this law? where do you file this case if  the suspect used email to reproduce and spread the nude pictures of the victim?

    • Atty. James Biron says:

      Atty. Allan, the law is silent regarding the territorial jurisdiction unlike in Art. 360 of the RPC which is very clear in stating the rule regarding the territorial jurisdiction.

      In this case, we will apply the basic rule that in criminal actions, the place where the criminal offense was committed determines the venue.

      Thus if the offender used his computer in Quezon City to spread the pictures, you have to file the complaint in QC, but if he used a computer in an internet cafe in Makati City, you have to file it in Makati because that is where the offense was committed.

  • angel says:

    i like this law!!

  • jhony martin alba says:

    atty. is kissing considered as sexual act under this law? if not, in what way it can be considered as such? thanks
     

    • Atty. James Biron says:

      Jhony, please post your question at the forum section of this website. I will answer your question once I see it there.

    • Magoichi Saika says:

      jhony martin alba, may I try to answer your question like a person with common sense? 

      Kissing between two lips is never sexual in itself, only the end-purpose of the kissing two lips can really determine the sexuality of such. Ergo, if kissing is used to stimulate sexually, then it’s sexual. But I doubt this will ever be included in that Anti-Photo Law.

      On the other hand, together with licking, sucking, and poking… kissing is part of felatio (blow job) and cunnilingus (p*s*y lick).

      In this case, it’s definitely sexual — unless you’re an animal cleaning up your loved one.

  • jhony martin alba says:

    atty. is kissing considered as sexual act under this law? if not, in what way it can be considered as such? thanks

  • odette says:

    i want to know if there has criminal liability for death of a person you attack but died due to lightnings?
    thank you

    • Magoichi Saika says:

      I’m no lawyer, but the way I see it no way can that person be convicted of first-degree murder. First-degree murder is planning to kill and successfully doing so. The idiot here failed to do so. Apparently God was the first-degree murderer here. The most the idiot can get is second-degree murder or common law murder which is non-intentional or murders that you planned but failed to finish.

  • csp says:

    What if the suspect actually captures the images or videos is overseas and the subject is a phil citizen in Phil, how will this law work?

  • eric says:

    I think this is a hastily made law because if you will execute or implement this law maybe all citizens of the Phils will be charge with this because of the ff provisions:
    2. To:
     

    copy or reproduce, or
    cause to be copied or reproduced,

     
    such photo or video or recording of sexual act, whether it be:
     

    the original copy or
    reproduction thereof

    show or exhibit

    the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or any similar activity
    through:
    –  VCD/DVD
    –  Internet
    –  Cellular phones
    –  Other similar means and devices
    EVERYONE KNOWS THAT EVEN MEDIA HAS A COPY OF ALL THOSE SCANDALS THATS WHY THEY KNEW ABOUT IT AND THEY HAVE SHOWN IT TO THEIR FRIENDS, EMPLOYEES AND OTHERS
    AND THE ONLY EXEMPTION IS PEACE OFFICER WITH CONDITION.
    SO ITS USELESS BECAUSE IT WILL CREATE UNFAIRNESS TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE TRAPPED OR BE SUBJECTED INTO PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATION OF THIS LAW.
    THE REASON IS IN THE EYES OF THE OFFENDER HE IS NOT THE ONLY ONE VIOLATING IT. HE WAS JUST SINGLED OUT FROM SO MANY OTHER VIOLATORS.
    NOW IS THERE JUSTICE ON THIS ONE.
     
     
     
     

  • rey says:

    Sir, suppose a husband inadvertently discovered a video of his wife having sexual intercourse with another man and that video was taken by no other than the wife herself, can the husband use that video in court as evidence in an adultery case against his wife?  On the other hand, can the wife seek protection under this law? Thank you.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.

PASSWORD RESET

LOG IN