Digest by Gabrielle L. Pangan
FACTS
Petitioner, who was then 24 years old, met the victim, AAA, who was only 14 years old, in the canteen where he works. Later, AAA sent the petitioner a request on his Facebook Messenger, which he accepted. The petitioner and AAA would then exchange messages on Facebook Messenger until they became sweethearts. BBB, the mother of AAA, learned of their relationship. Eventually, she found that the petitioner coaxed her daughter to send him photos of the latter’s breast and vagina. AAA relented and sent the petitioner the photos he was asking for. In its decision, the SC rejected the petition that the message thread which was admitted as evidence against him should be excluded since the same was obtained in violation of his right to privacy, even though he had given AAA access to his account.
Petitioner was then charged for violation of Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 and for child pornography as defined and penalized under Section 4(c)(2) of R.A. No. 10175 in relation to Sections 4(a), 3(b) and (c)(5) of R.A. No. 9775.
ISSUE
Whether the message thread presented to the Court may be admitted as evidence.
RULING
YES. The message thread may be presented as evidence. In this case, BBB invoked his right to privacy as the basis for the inadmissibility of the message thread. Petitioner’s expectation of privacy emanated from the fact that his Facebook Messenger account was password protected, such that no one can access the same except for himself. There was also no mention of his account being compromised or hacked. The photos were obtained from his account because he gave AAA access to his account. No effort on the part of the petitioner was also done to prevent AAA from opening his account. Consequently, petitioner’s reasonable expectation of privacy, in so far as AAA is concerned, had been limited. The photos have also become material to asserting AAA’s claims. There was no violation of privacy in this case. Thus, the message thread may be admitted as evidence.
THE BARRISTER 