CYBERSEX •B E R D E R A , J O H N P H I L I P

Group 10 •A L M I N E , E R LY J R .
•M A L A S A N , H A RV Y N
•D O R O T E O , J H O N M A R K A N D R E W
•M A R K L E S T E R , E R N A C I O
CYBERSEX
Cybersex, also called computer sex, Internet sex, netsex and, colloquially, cyber or cybering, is a virtual sex
encounter in which two or more people have long distance sex via electronic video communication and other
electronics connected to a computer network.

Cybersex encompasses a variety of online activities that involve sexual content or interactions. Here are
some aspects and considerations related to cybersex:
Communication Platforms: Cybersex can occur on various communication platforms, including:
Chat Rooms: These are online spaces where individuals can engage in real-time text-based
conversations.
Instant Messaging and Messaging Apps: Private messaging platforms allow users to exchange text,
images, videos, and audio clips.
Video Conferencing: Platforms that support video calls can be used for more immersive cybersex
experiences, including visual and audio elements.
Media Exchange: Participants in cybersex may share sexually explicit content, such as images, videos, or audio recordings.
This can be consensual and mutual, but it's important to consider privacy and the potential for misuse of shared content.
Role-Playing: Some individuals engage in cybersex through role-playing scenarios, where they create fictional characters or
scenarios to explore sexual fantasies. This can involve descriptive text, storytelling, or even the use of multimedia elements.
Consent and Boundaries: Like any sexual activity, consent is crucial in cybersex. All participants should be willing and
enthusiastic, and it's important to establish and respect boundaries. Communication about desires, limits, and comfort levels is
key.
Safety and Privacy: Users should be cautious about sharing personal information and ensure they are using secure and private
platforms. Cybersex encounters should take place with individuals who are trusted, and participants should be aware of the
potential risks, such as hacking, exposure, or harassment.
Legal Considerations: Participants should be aware of the legal age of consent in their jurisdiction and ensure that all involved
parties are of legal age. Sharing explicit content involving minors is illegal and can have serious consequences.
Ethical Behavior: Engaging in cybersex should be done ethically and responsibly. Participants should be mindful of the
potential emotional impact on themselves and others, and they should avoid engaging in activities that may be harmful or non-
consensual.
PENALTY
Any person found guilty of any of the punishable acts enumerated in Section 4(c)(1) of this Act
shall be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of at least Two hundred thousand
pesos (PhP200,000.00) but not exceeding One million pesos (PhPl,000,000.00) or both.
Individuals found guilty of cybersex face a minimum prison sentence of six years and one day, a
maximum prison of 12 years, In addition, unsolicited communication is punishable by one month
to six months in prison, a fine of not less than P50,000 but not more than P250,000, or both.
CYBERSEX CASES
Filipino Children as Young as 2 Rescued from Cybersex Trafficking
In 2015, a desktop computer in a Philippine police station, once used for child cybersex
trafficking, led to the rescue of six children aged 2 to 7. Exploited online, the victims were from
the Philippines and broadcasted globally. With IJM's help, four suspects were arrested, including
a British man linked to a UK trafficking ring. The investigation unveiled Filipino women
exploiting their own kin. IJM, collaborating with authorities, simultaneously rescued children,
leading to additional arrests. Another case involving an American man and a Filipino woman
emerged, resulting in an ongoing trial. IJM emphasizes the need for shelters catering to boys and
stresses its commitment to supporting law enforcement in curbing such abuses.

Source: https://www.ijm.org/news/filipino-children-as-young-as-2-rescued-from-cybersex-
trafficking
15 kids saved from cybersex den ‘run’ by 2 teen girls – PNP

In Manila, a cybersex trafficking operation run by two teenagers was dismantled, leading to the rescue of
15 children aged 13 to 17. The suspects, a 17-year-old mastermind and her 18-year-old accomplice, were
arrested during an entrapment operation. The victims were coerced into performing sex acts on webcam
for foreign clients, earning a fee of P10,000. The suspects and victims were taken to the Women and
Children Protection Center for further processing. Charges under child trafficking and cybercrime laws
await the suspects, with the 17-year-old subject to juvenile justice laws. The government, led by Interior
Secretary Benhur Abalos, is intensifying efforts to combat cybersex trafficking, emphasizing the need for
coordinated action and urging the public to report suspicious activities. The country has seen a surge in
online sexual abuse and exploitation cases, exacerbated by the pandemic lockdowns.

Source: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1661625/15-kids-saved-from-cybersex-den-run-by-2-teen-girls-pnp
JURISPRUDENCE
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 237697, July 15, 2020 ] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EMMA LEOCADIO Y SALAZAR AND SHERRYL
LEOCADIO Y SALAZAR, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
DECISION
PERALTA, C.J.:
On appeal is the June 29, 2017 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 02220 which affirmed with modifications the September 24, 2015
Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Cebu City in Criminal Case No. CBU-93590, finding accused-appellants Emma Leocadio y Salazar and
Sherryl Leocadio y Salazar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 6 (a) and (c), in relation to Sections 4 (a) and 3, and
penalized under Section 10 (a) and (c) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9208, otherwise known as the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003.
In an Information3 dated August 25, 2011, accused-appellants were charged with Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 6 (a) and (c), in relation to
Sections 4 (a) and 3, and penalized under Section 10 (a) and (c) of R.A. No. 9208, committed as follows: That on or about the 5th day of August 2011, in the City
of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping each other,
recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, provide or receive a person for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, or sexual exploitation, [JJJ],4 16 years old, [KKK], 17
years old, [CCC], 15 years old, [AAA], 17 years old, [DDD], 16 years old, [BBB], 18 years old, [GGG], 13 years old, [HHH], 15 years old, [FFF], 15 years old,
[III], 16 years old, [LLL], 17 years old and [MMM], 17 years old, that is by recruiting them from Bohol and transport them to Cebu on their way to Angeles,
Pampanga to work in an internet cafe for purposes of [cybersex] by means of taking advantage of their vulnerability and/or giving payments or benefits to achieve
the consent of the person having control over the said trafficked persons, by offering them work in an internet cafe in Angeles, Pampanga and/or giving their
parents or the person having custody[,] money or other benefits. With the qualifying circumstances of being committed in large scale as more than three (3) persons
were trafficked and that the trafficked persons are minors. CONTRARY TO LAW.5 In their arraignment, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty6 to the charge.
During the trial of the case, they were detained at the Cebu City Jail. The prosecution presented six (6) witnesses, namely: CCC, DDD, AAA, BBB, Edna Regudo
and Police Officer 2 (PO2) Jessie Carel. The defense, for its part, presented accused-appellants and Annabel Tampus.7
In an Information3 dated August 25, 2011, accused-appellants were charged with Qualified Trafficking in
Persons under Section 6 (a) and (c), in relation to Sections 4 (a) and 3, and penalized under Section 10
(a) and (c) of R.A. No. 9208, committed as follows:
That on or about the 5th day of August 2011, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping
each other, recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, provide or receive a person for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, or sexual exploitation, [JJJ],4 16 years old, [KKK], 17 years old, [CCC], 15 years old,
[AAA], 17 years old, [DDD], 16 years old, [BBB], 18 years old, [GGG], 13 years old, [HHH], 15 years
old, [FFF], 15 years old, [III], 16 years old, [LLL], 17 years old and [MMM], 17 years old, that is by
recruiting them from Bohol and transport them to Cebu on their way to Angeles, Pampanga to work in an
internet cafe for purposes of [cybersex] by means of taking advantage of their vulnerability and/or giving
payments or benefits to achieve the consent of the person having control over the said trafficked persons,
by offering them work in an internet cafe in Angeles, Pampanga and/or giving their parents or the person
having custody[,] money or other benefits. With the qualifying circumstances of being committed in
large scale as more than three (3) persons were trafficked and that the trafficked persons are minors.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
In their arraignment, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty6 to the charge. During the trial of the case,
they were detained at the Cebu City Jail. The prosecution presented six (6) witnesses, namely: CCC,
DDD, AAA, BBB, Edna Regudo and Police Officer 2 (PO2) Jessie Carel. The defense, for its part,
presented accused-appellants and Annabel Tampus.7
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. XXX AND YYY,* Accused-Appellants.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Before the Court is an ordinary appeal1 filed by accused-appellants XXX and YYY (accused-
appellants) assailing the Decision2 dated August 25, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08446, which affirmed the Judgment3 dated October 23, 2015 of the Regional
Trial� Court of Bi�an, Laguna, Branch 25 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. 21802-B, 21803-B,
21804-B, and 24608-B, convicting them of multiple counts of Qualified Trafficking in Persons
defined and penalized under Section 4 in relation to Section 6 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9208,4
otherwise known as the "Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003."
 The key legal principles involved in this case are:

Definition of Trafficking in Persons: The law defines trafficking in persons as the recruitment, transportation, transfer,
harboring, or receipt of persons through various means for the purpose of exploitation, including prostitution,
pornography, forced labor, slavery, and other forms of sexual exploitation.
Qualified Trafficking: The charges against the accused-appellants are qualified trafficking, as the victims are children,
and the offenders are their parents, falling under the circumstances specified in Section 6(a) and (d) of RA 9208.
Elements of the Offense: The prosecution must establish several elements to prove the offense, including the fact that the
accused-appellants are the biological parents of the victims, that they engaged their children in cybersex, and that they
received money in exchange for the sexual exploitation of their children.
Credibility of Witnesses: The court considered the testimonies of the victims (AAA, BBB, and CCC) as credible and
straightforward, leading to the conviction of the accused-appellants. The court rejected the defense's claim that the charges
were fabricated.
Penalties: The law prescribes severe penalties for qualified trafficking, including life imprisonment and substantial fines.
The court upheld these penalties for the accused-appellants.
Damages: The court ordered the accused-appellants to pay moral and exemplary damages to the victims, taking into
account the psychological and emotional harm suffered by the children.