Privacy of Communication and Correspondence Case Digests

1. Ramirez v. CA dictaphone or dictagraph or

detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape
FACTS: recorder, or however otherwise
Petitioner Socorro D. Ramirez filed a described.
civil case in the Regional Trial Court of The law is clear and unambiguous.
Quezon City alleging that the private Where the law makes no distinctions,
respondent, Ester S. Garcia, in a one does not distinguish. The Supreme
confrontation in the latter's office, Court affirmed the appealed decision.
allegedly vexed, insulted and The instant petition is hereby DENIED.
humiliated her in a "hostile and furious Cost against petitioner.
mood" and in a manner offensive to his 2. Zulueta v. CA
dignity and personality, contrary to
morals, good customs and public Facts:
policy. This is a petition to review the decision
In support of her claim, petitioner of the Court of Appeals, affirming the
produced a verbatim transcript of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
event and sought moral damages, Manila (Branch X) which ordered
attorney's fees and other expenses of petitioner to return documents and
litigation in the amount of papers taken by her from private
P610,000.00, in addition to costs, respondent's clinic without the latter's
interests and other reliefs awardable at knowledge and consent.
the trial court's discretion. The
transcript on which the civil case was Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of
based was culled from a tape recording private respondent Alfredo Martin. On
of the confrontation made by March 26, 1982, petitioner entered the
petitioner. clinic of her husband, a doctor of
As a result of petitioner's recording of medicine, and in the presence of her
the event and alleging that the said mother, a driver and private
act of secretly taping the confrontation respondent's secretary, forcibly
was illegal, private respondent filed a opened the drawers and cabinet in her
criminal case before the Regional Trial husband's clinic and took 157
Court of Pasay City for violation of documents consisting of private
Republic Act 4200, entitled "An Act to correspondence between Dr. Martin
prohibit and penalize wire tapping and and his alleged paramours, greetings
other related violations of private cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr.
communication, and other purposes. Martin's passport, and photographs.
The documents and papers were
ISSUE: seized for use in evidence in a case for
Whether or not the applicable legal separation and for
provision of Republic Act 4200 does disqualification from the practice of
not apply to the taping of a private medicine which petitioner had filed
conversation by one of the parties to against her husband.
the conversation.
Issue:
RULING: (1) Whether or not the documents and
No. Section 1 of the Republic Act 4200 papers in question are inadmissible in
states that it shall be unlawful for any evidence;
person, not being authorized by all the
parties to any private communication Held:
or spoken word, to tap any wire or (1) No. Indeed the documents and
cable, or by using any other device or papers in question are inadmissible in
arrangement, to secretly overhear, evidence. The constitutional injunction
intercept, or record such declaring "the privacy of
communication or spoken word by communication and correspondence
using a device commonly known as a [to be] inviolable" is no less applicable
Privacy of Communication and Correspondence Case Digests
simply because it is the wife (who
thinks herself aggrieved by her
husband's infidelity) who is the party
against whom the constitutional
provision is to be enforced. The only
exception to the prohibition in the
Constitution is if there is a "lawful
order [from a] court or when public
safety or order requires otherwise, as
prescribed by law." Any violation of
this provision renders the evidence
obtained inadmissible "for any purpose
in any proceeding."
The intimacies between husband and
wife do not justify any one of them in
breaking the drawers and cabinets of
the other and in ransacking them for
any telltale evidence of marital
infidelity. A person, by contracting
marriage, does not shed his/her
integrity or his right to privacy as an
individual and the constitutional
protection is ever available to him or to
her.
The law insures absolute freedom of
communication between the spouses
by making it privileged. Neither
husband nor wife may testify for or
against the other without the consent
of the affected spouse while the
marriage subsists. Neither may be
examined without the consent of the
other as to any communication
received in confidence by one from the
other during the marriage, save for
specified exceptions. But one thing is
freedom of communication; quite
another is a compulsion for each one
to share what one knows with the
other. And this has nothing to do with
the duty of fidelity that each owes to
the other.
3. Navarro v. CA
FACTS:
Two local media men, Stanley
Jalbuena, Enrique Lingan, in Lucena
City went to the police station to report
alledged indecent show in one of the
night establishment shows in the City.
At the station, a heated confrontation
followed between victim Lingan and
accused policeman Navarro who was
then having drinks outside the
headquarters, lead to a fisticuffs. The
victim was hit with the handle of the
accused's gun below the left eyebrow,
followed by a fist blow, resulted the
victim to fell and died under
treatment. The exchange of words was
recorded on tape, specifically the
frantic exclamations made by Navarro
after the altercation that it was the
victim who provoked the fight. During
the trial, Jalbuena, the other media
man , testified. Presented in evidence
to confirm his testimony was a voice
recording he had made of the heated
discussion at the police station
between the accused police officer
Navarro and the deceased, Lingan,
which was taken without the
knowledge of the two.
ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the voice
recording is admissible in evidence in
view of RA 4200, which prohibits wire-
tapping.
HELD:
1. The answer is affirmative, the
tape is admissible in view of RA 4200,
which prohibits wire
tapping. Jalbuena's testimony is
confirmed by the voice recording he
had made.
The law prohibits the overhearing,
intercepting, or recording of private
communications (Ramirez v Court of
Appeals, 248 SCRA 590 [1995]). Since
the exchange between petitioner
Navarro and Lingan was not private, its
tape recording is not prohibited.
4. OPLE VS TORRES
FACTS: Petitioner Senator Blas F. Ople
assailed the constitutionality of the
Administrative Order No. 308 entitled
Adoption of Computerized Identific
ation Reference System on the
following grounds:
1.) The administrative order issued by
the executive is deemed to be a
law and not a mere administrative
Privacy of Communication and Correspondence Case Digests
order thus it is a usurpation of
legislative power of the congress
to make laws, and
2.) It impermissibly intrudes the
citizens constitutional right of
privacy.
ISSUE: Does the Administrative Order
No. 308 violate the constitutional right
to privacy?
HELD: Yes, the Administrative Order
violates the constitutional right to
privacy because its scope is too
broad and vague that will put
peoples right to privacy in clear and
present danger if implemented. The
A.O. 308 also lacks of proper
safeguards for protecting the
information that will be gathered
from people through biometrics and
other means. Thus, A.O. No. 308 may
interfere with the individuals
liberty of abode and travel by
enabling authorities to track down his
movement; it may also enable
unscrupulous persons to access
confidential information and
circumvent the right against self-
incrimination; it may pave the way
for fishing expeditions by
government
authorities and evade the right
against unreasonable searches
and seizures
5. Vivares v. STC
GR 202666
In January 2012, Angela Tan, a high
school student at St. Theresas College
(STC), uploaded on Facebook several
pictures of her and her classmates
(Nenita Daluz and Julienne Suzara)
wearing only their undergarments.
Thereafter, some of their classmates
reported said photos to their teacher,
Mylene Escudero. Escudero,
through her students, viewed and
downloaded said pictures. She showed
the said pictures to STCs Discipline-in-
Charge for appropriate action.
Later, STC found Tan et al to have
violated the students handbook and
banned them from marching in their
graduation ceremonies scheduled in
March 2012.
The issue went to court but despite a
TRO (temporary restraining order)
granted by the Cebu RTC enjoining the
school from barring the students in the
graduation ceremonies, STC still barred
said students.
Subsequently, Rhonda Vivares, mother
of Nenita, and the other mothers filed
a petition for the issuance of the writ
of habeas data against the school.
They argued, among others, that:
1. The privacy setting of their
childrens Facebook accounts was set
at Friends Only. They, thus, have a
reasonable expectation of privacy
which must be respected.
2. The photos accessed belong to the
girls and, thus, cannot be used and
reproduced without their consent.
Escudero, however, violated their
rights by saving digital copies of the
photos and by subsequently showing
them to STCs officials. Thus, the
Facebook accounts of the children
were intruded upon;
3. The intrusion into the Facebook
accounts, as well as the copying of
information, data, and digital images
happened at STCs Computer
Laboratory;
They prayed that STC be ordered to
surrender and deposit with the court
all soft and printed copies of the
subject data and have such data be
declared illegally obtained in violation
of the childrens right to privacy.
The Cebu RTC eventually denied the
petition. Hence, this appeal.
Privacy of Communication and Correspondence Case Digests
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for
writ of habeas data is proper.
HELD: Yes, it is proper but in this case,
it will not prosper.
Contrary to the arguments of STC, the
Supreme Court ruled that:
1. The petition for writ of habeas data
can be availed of even if this is not a
case of extralegal killing or enforced
disappearance; and
2. The writ of habeas data can be
availed of against STC even if it is not
an entity engaged in the business of
gathering, collecting, or storing data
or information regarding the person,
family, home and correspondence of
the aggrieved party.
First, the Rule on Habeas Data does
not state that it can be applied only in
cases of extralegal killings or enforced
disappearances. Second, nothing in
the Rule would suggest that the
habeas data protection shall be
available only against abuses of a
person or entity engaged in the
business of gathering, storing, and
collecting of data.
Right to Privacy on Social Media
(Online Networking Sites)
The Supreme Court ruled that if an
online networking site (ONS) like
Facebook has privacy tools, and the
user makes use of such privacy tools,
then he or she has a reasonable
expectation of privacy (right to
informational privacy, that is). Thus,
such privacy must be respected and
protected.
In this case, however, there is no
showing that the students concerned
made use of such privacy tools.
Evidence would show that that their
post (status) on Facebook were
published as Public.
Facebook has the following settings to
control as to who can view a users
posts on his wall (profile page):
(a) Public the default setting; every
Facebook user can view the photo;
(b) Friends of Friends only the users
Facebook friends and their friends can
view the photo;
(c) Friends only the users Facebook
friends can view the photo;
(d) Custom the photo is made visible
only to particular friends and/or
networks of the Facebook user; and
(e) Only Me the digital image can be
viewed only by the user.
The default setting is Public and if a
user wants to have some privacy, then
he must choose any setting other than
Public. If it is true that the students
concerned did set the posts subject of
this case so much so that only five
people can see them (as they claim),
then how come most of their
classmates were able to view them.
This fact was not refuted by them. In
fact, it was their classmates who
informed and showed their teacher,
Escudero, of the said pictures.
Therefore, it appears that Tan et al
never use the privacy settings of
Facebook hence, they have no
reasonable expectation of privacy on
the pictures of them scantily clad.
STC did not violate the students
right to privacy. The manner which
the school gathered the pictures
cannot be considered illegal. As it
appears, it was the classmates of the
students who showed the picture to
their teacher and the latter, being the
recipient of said pictures, merely
delivered them to the proper school
authority and it was for a legal
purpose, that is, to discipline their
students according to the standards of
the school (to which the students and
their parents agreed to in the first
Privacy of Communication and Correspondence Case Digests
place because of the fact that they
enrolled their children there).
6. Gamboa v. Chan, G.R. No.
193636,
FACTS: Gamboa alleged that the
Philippine National Police in Ilocos
Norte (PNPIlocos Norte) conducted a
series of surveillance operations
against her and her aides, and
classified her as someone who keeps a
Private Army Group (PAG). Purportedly
without the benefit of data verification,
PNPIlocos Norte forwarded the
information gathered on her to the
Zearosa Commission, thereby causing
her inclusion in the Reports
enumeration of individuals maintaining
PAGs. Contending that her right to
privacy was violated and her
reputation maligned and destroyed,
Gamboa filed a Petition for the
issuance of a writ of habeas data
against respondents in their capacities
as officials of the PNP-Ilocos Norte.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for
the issuance of writ of habeas data is
proper when the right to privacy is
invoked as opposed to the states
interest in preserving the right to life,
liberty or security.
RULING: NO. The writ of habeas data
is an independent and summary
remedy designed to protect the image,
privacy, honor, information, and
freedom of information of an
individual, and to provide a forum to
enforce ones right to the truth and to
informational privacy. It seeks to
protect a persons right to control
information regarding oneself,
particularly in instances in which such
information is being collected through
unlawful means in order to achieve
unlawful ends. It must be emphasized
that in order for the privilege of the
writ to be granted, there must exist a
nexus between the right to privacy on
the one hand, and the right to life,
liberty or security on the other.
In this case, the Court ruled that
Gamboa was unable to prove through
substantial evidence that her inclusion
in the list of individuals maintaining
PAGs made her and her supporters
susceptible to harassment and to
increased police surveillance. In this
regard, respondents sufficiently
explained that the investigations
conducted against her were in relation
to the criminal cases in which she was
implicated. As public officials, they
enjoy the presumption of regularity,
which she failed to overcome. [T]he
state interest of dismantling PAGs far
outweighs the alleged intrusion on the
private life of Gamboa, especially
when the collection and forwarding by
the PNP of information against her was
pursuant to a lawful mandate.
Therefore, the privilege of the writ of
habeas data must be denied.
7. Katz v. US
Facts of the case
Acting on a suspicion that Katz was
transmitting gambling information over
the phone to clients in other states,
Federal agents attached an
eavesdropping device to the outside of
a public phone booth used by Katz.
Based on recordings of his end of the
conversations, Katz was convicted
under an eight-count indictment for
the illegal transmission of wagering
information from Los Angeles to Boston
and Miami. On appeal, Katz challenged
his conviction arguing that the
recordings could not be used as
evidence against him. The Court of
Appeals rejected this point, noting the
absence of a physical intrusion into the
phone booth itself. The Court granted
certiorari.
Question
Does the Fourth Amendment
protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures require the
police to obtain a search warrant in
order to wiretap a public pay phone?
Held: Yes. The Court ruled that Katz
was entitled to Fourth Amendment
Privacy of Communication and Correspondence Case Digests
protection for his conversations and
that a physical intrusion into the area
he occupied was unnecessary to bring
the Amendment into play. "The Fourth
Amendment protects people, not
places," wrote Justice Potter Stewart
for the Court. A concurring opinion by
John Marshall Harlan introduced the
idea of a 'reasonable' expectation of
Fourth Amendment protection.
8. Olmstead v. US
Brief Fact Summary. The
conversations of various individuals
involved in illegal liquor sales were
tapped.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A
standard which would forbid the
reception of evidence, if obtained by
other than nice ethical conduct by
government officials, would make
society suffer and give criminals
greater immunity than has been
known heretofore. In the absence of
controlling legislation by Congress,
those who realize the difficulties in
bringing offenders to justice may well
deem it wise that the exclusion of
evidence should be confined to cases
where rights under the Constitution
would be violated by admitting it.
Facts. Various individuals were
convicted of liquor related crimes,
including conspiracy. The operation
grossed a substantial amount of
money. The leading conspirator and
the general manager of the business
was one of the Petitioners, Olmstead
(the Petitioner). The main office of
the business was in Seattle and there
were three telephones in the office,
each on a different line. There were
also telephones in an office the
Petitioner had in his own home, at the
home of his associates and various
other places in Seattle. A lot of
communication occurred between
Seattle and Vancouver, British
Columbia.
The information which led to the
discovery of the conspiracy and its
nature and extent was largely obtained
by intercepting messages on the
telephones of the conspirators by four
federal prohibition officers. Small wires
were inserted along the ordinary
telephone wires from the residences of
four of the [suspects] and those
leading from the chief office. The
insertions were made without trespass
upon any property of the defendants.
They were made in the basement of
the large office building. The taps from
house lines were made in the streets
near the houses.
Various conversations were taped and
testified to by government witnesses.
Issue. [W]hether the use of evidence
of private telephone conversations
between the defendants and others,
intercepted by means of wire tapping,
amounted to a violation of the Fourth
and Fifth Amendments[?]
Held. The [Fourth] amendment does
not forbid what was done here. There
was no searching. There was no
seizure. The evidence was secured by
the use of the sense of hearing and
that only. There was no entry of the
houses or offices of the defendants. By
the invention of the telephone 50
years ago, and its application for the
purpose of extending communications,
one can talk with another at a far
distant place. The language of the
amendment cannot be extended and
expanded to include telephone wires,
reaching to the whole world from the
defendants house or office. The
intervening wires are not part of his
house or office, any more than are the
highways along which they are
stretched.
Congress may, of course, protect the
secrecy of telephone messages by
making them, when intercepted,
inadmissible in evidence in federal
criminal trials, by direct legislation,
and thus depart from the common law
of evidence. But the courts may not
adopt such a policy by attributing an
enlarged and unusual meaning to the
Privacy of Communication and Correspondence Case Digests
Fourth Amendment. The reasonable
view is that one who installs in his
house a telephone instrument with
connecting wires intends to project his
voice to those quite outside, and that
the wires beyond his house, and
messages while passing over them,
are not within the protection of the
Fourth Amendment. Here those who
intercepted the projected voices were
not in the house of either party to the
conversation.
Neither the cases we have cited nor
any of the many federal decisions
brought to our attention hold the
Fourth Amendment to have been
violated as against a defendant, unless
there has been an official search and
seizure of his person or such a seizure
of his papers or his tangible material
effects or an actual physical invasion
of his house or curtilage for the
purpose of making a seizure. [The
court thought], therefore, that the wire
tapping here disclosed did not amount
to a search or seizure within the
meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Additionally, [t]he common-law rule is
that the admissibility of evidence is not
affected by the illegality of the means
by which it was obtained.
A standard which would forbid the
reception of evidence, if obtained by
other than nice ethical conduct by
government officials, would make
society suffer and give criminals
greater immunity than has been
known heretofore. In the absence of
controlling legislation by Congress,
those who realize the difficulties in
bringing offenders to justice may well
deem it wise that the exclusion of
evidence should be confined to cases
where rights under the Constitution
would be violated by admitting it.