A private video which allegedly features TV5 news anchor/program host Paolo Bediones and an unidentified woman has gone viral on the Internet.
In fact, websites who’ve written posts about it has experienced a surge in their search engine traffic as of Sunday afternoon.
Showbiz website FashionPulis.com was the first one to post screenshots from the said sensitive video. See that picture gallery through this link. Meanwhile, according to LionHearTV.net, the video is almost seven minutes long.
Rumors about the existence of the said video was mentioned through radio and tabloid blind items. The Filipino Scribe, for example, heard DZXL’s Deo Macalma talk about such a sex video featuring a TV host during his broadcast last July 17.
For their part, Bediones’ home network TV5 has expressed its support for its embattled news anchor. In a statement published at GMA News Online, the network called the uploading of the said video as “nothing more than an attempt to smear (Bediones’) reputation.”
“We disapprove strongly the malicious and wanton publication of the video, an act that clearly violates pertinent cybercrime laws,” the network added.
Is it against the law?
Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 did not impose any new penalties for the spreading of scandal videos online mainly because there’s already a law that governs it, which is RA 9995 or the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009.
Section 4.d of the said law prohibits anyone from showing or exhibiting “the photo or video coverage or recordings of (sexual acts) or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, Internet, cellular phones, and other similar means or device.”
The Filipino Scribe is no stranger to RA 9995. When it wrote about actress Marjorie Barretto’s alleged photo scandal last year, her lawyer Lorna Kapunan sent us a take-down notice.
TFS argued (check our conversation with Attorney Kapunan in this page) that Barretto’s camp has no legal standing to made such a demand since the actress denied that it was her in the picture.
Barretto of course took back her initial denial, although the circumstances behind the circulation of the private photos was never clarified.