The use of online chat logs and videos as evidence in court to prove that a crime was committed does not violate a person’s right to privacy, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled.
Reiterating its previous rulings, the SC dismissed the appeal filed by Eul Vincent O. Rodriquez whose conviction for qualified human trafficking by the trial court was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).
The SC decision was written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez for the court’s second division.
A summary of the case records issued by the SC’s Public Information Office (SC-PIO) stated that in 2013, the Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force of Region 7 began investigating Rodriguez after receiving a tip from the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
It said that Police Officer 3 Jerry Gambi used a decoy account to communicate with Rodriguez across various online platforms, and recorded their correspondence.
In their initial interactions online, Rodriguez offered Gambi nude shows in exchange for money, including one involving Rodriguez’s minor cousins.
Once the show started and was recorded, Gambi stopped the show. They then set up an entrapment operation where Gambi told Rodriguez that a foreigner friend was staying at a certain hotel. Rodriguez offered to have 14-year-old AAA meet them at the hotel to do a live nude show, the summary stated.
During the entrapment operation, the SC-PIO said that Rodriguez accepted marked money from the foreigner posing as “Kyle Edwards,” who was actually an undercover confidential informant of the Task Force.
“Upon Rodriguez’s acceptance of the payment, he was arrested and charged,” it said.
The regional trial court (RTC) convicted Rodriquez. The CA affirmed his conviction.
In its decision, the SC said:
“We reject Rodriguez's contentions that the recorded chat logs and videos are inadmissible in evidence for violation of his right to privacy. Republic Act No. 10173, also known as the Data Privacy Act of 2012, allows the processing of sensitive personal information when it relates to the determination of criminal liability of a data subject and when necessary for the protection of lawful rights and interests of persons in court proceedings.
“Thus, in the case of Cadajas v. People (2021 decision), we rejected the accused's argument that the photographs and conversations in the Facebook Messages between him and the minor victim cannot be used against him.
“Similarly, the communications, photos, and videos sought to be excluded by Rodriguez were submitted in evidence to prosecute him for violation of qualified trafficking and to establish AAA263603's (denominated name of victim) legal claims.
“Thus, there is no violation of the right to privacy.
“Neither can Rodriguez rely on Republic Act No. 4200, or the Anti-Wire Tapping Law. In Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (1986 decision), we have clarified that the prohibition therein only applies to instruments used for tapping the main line of a telephone:
“By no stretch of the imagination can the recording of Skype conversations and pictures be of the same nature as ‘tapping the main line of a telephone.’ Thus, the trial court properly admitted and appreciated these pieces of evidence.
“Moreover, as aptly held by the appellate court, these items are evidence of Rodriguez's ‘identity, plan, system, scheme, or habit' under Rule 130, Section 34 of the Rules of Evidence. Here, the videos and chat logs were not offered to prove the existence of the crime charged in the Information. Rather, it was only to show the modus operandi of Rodriguez in reaching out to foreigners via Skype or Facebook and offering minors for sexual exploitation.
“The Court affirms the imposition of the penalty of life imprisonment and fine in the amount of P2,000,000 as provided under Section l0(e) of Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by Republic Act No. 10364.
“However, the phrase ‘without eligibility for parole’ should be removed. Pursuant to A.M. No. l 5-08-02-SC, the qualification of ‘without eligibility for parole’ shall only be used to emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced to suffer the death penalty had not been for Republic Act No. 9346.
“We likewise affirm the award of P500,000 as moral damages and P100,000 as exemplary damages, with legal interest of six percent per annum from finality of judgment until full payment….”