SECTION 3 – PRIVACY, EXCLUSIONARY RULE

1. SALCEDO-ORTANEZ VS CA 235 SCRA 111

FACTS: Private Respondent Rafael S. Ortanez filed with the RTC of Quezon City a complaint for
annulment of marriage with damages against petitioner Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez, on grounds of
lack of marriage license and/or psychological incapacity of the petitioner. The complaint was
raffled to Branch 94, RTC of Quezon City presided over by respondent Judge Romeo F.
Zamora.Private respondent orally & formally offered his evidence. Among those offered were
three (3) cassette tapes of alleged telephone conversations between petitioner and certain
unidentified persons. Such was objected by petitioner who submitted her objection/comment to
said offer of evidence. However the RTC of Quezon City admitted all the evidence formally
offered by herein private respondent Ortanez. MR filed by petitioner which was denied. Petition
for Certiorari was then filed by petitioner before the CA questioning the admission in evidence of
said cassette tapes.CA ruled that the tape recordings are not inadmissible per se and that they
and any other variant thereof can be admitted in evidence for certain purposes, depending on
how they are presented and offered and on how the trial judge utilizes them in the interest of truth
and fairness and the even handed administration of justice and that and (2) A petition
for certiorari is notoriously inappropriate to rectify a supposed error in admitting evidence
adduced during trial. Petition for review was then filed by petitioner questioning the decision of the
Court of Appeals which has no basis in law or any in any previous decision rendered by the
Supreme Court.

ISSUE: WON the cassette tapes containing the conversation of the petitioner is admissible as
evidence.

RULING: NO. Such unauthorized tape recordings of telephone conversations not admissible in
evidence. It is RA 4200 entitled “An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping and Other Related
Violations of the Privacy of Communication, and for other purposes” expressly makes such tape
recordings inadmissible in evidence.
o The relevant provisions of RA 4200 are as follows:
 Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the
parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or
cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear,
intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device
commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or
walkie-talkie or tape-recorder, or however otherwise described. . . .
 Sec. 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents,
substance, purport, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any
information therein contained, obtained or secured by any person in
violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in
evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing
or investigation.
Clearly, respondents trial court and the Court of Appeals failed to consider the provisions of the law
in admitting in evidence the cassette tapes in question. Absent a clear showing that both parties to
the telephone conversations allowed the recording of the same, the inadmissibility of the subject
tapes is mandatory under Rep. Act No. 4200.

2. ZULUETA VS COURT OF APPEALS – 253 SCRA 699

FACTS: Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private respondent Alfredo Martin. On
March 26, 1982, petitioner entered the clinic of her husband, a doctor of medicine, and in
the presence of her mother, a driver and private respondents secretary, forcibly opened
the drawers and cabinet in her husbands clinic and took 157 documents consisting of
private correspondence between Dr. Martin and his alleged paramours, greetings cards,
cancelled checks, diaries, Dr. Martins passport, and photographs. The documents and
papers were seized for use in evidence in a case for legal separation and for
disqualification from the practice of medicine which petitioner had filed against her
husband.

Dr. Martin brought an action for the recovery of the documents and papers and for
damages against petitioner. RTC rendered judgment for Dr. Martin declaring him the
capital/exclusive owner of the properties and ordering Cecilia Zulueta and any person
acting in her behalf to immediately return the properties to Dr. Martin and to pay him
damages. On appeal, CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.

In appealing the decision of the CA, petitioner’s only ground is that in Alfredo Martin vs.
Alfonso Felix, Jr. wherein the documents and papers were admissible in evidence and
therefore does not constitute malpractice and gross misconduct on the part of petitioner’s
attorney.

ISSUE: Whether or not he papers and other materials obtained from the forcible intrusion
and unlawful means are admissible as evidence in court regarding marital separation and
disqualification from medical practice

HELD: Indeed the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence. The
constitutional injunction declaring the privacy of communication and correspondence to
be inviolable is no less applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself
aggrieved by her husbands 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. PEOPLE VS MARTI – 193 SCRA 57

Facts: On August 14, 1987, the Andre Marti and his common-law wife, Shirley Reyes went to Manila
Packaging and Export Forwarders to send packages to Zurich, Switzerland. Anita Reyes received
the package and asked if she could inspect the packages. Shirley refused and eventually convinced
Anita to seal the package making it ready for shipment. Before being sent out for delivery, Job
Reyes, husband of Anita and proprietor of the courier company, conducted an inspection of the
package as part of standard operating procedures. Upon opening the package, he noticed a
suspicious odor which made him took sample of the substance he found inside. He reported this to
the NBI and invited agents to his office to inspect the package. In the presence of the NBI agents,
Job Reyes opened the suspicious package and found dried-marijuana leaves inside. A case was
filed against Andre Marti in violation of R.A. 6425 and was found guilty by the court a quo. Andre
filed an appeal in the Supreme Court claiming that his constitutional right of privacy was violated
and that the evidence acquired from his package was inadmissible as evidence against him.

Issue: Can the Constitutional Right of Privacy be enforced against private individuals?

Ruling: NO. The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore
applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the
enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint
against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.
If the search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a warrant must generally be first secured
if it is to pass the test of constitutionality. However, if the search is made at the behest or initiative
of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purposes, as in the case at bar,
and without the intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizure
cannot be invoked for only the act of private individual, not the law enforcers, is involved. In sum,
the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts committed
by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the
government.

Waiver of Rights under Sec 2 & Sec 3:

1. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILLIPPINES v. BASILIO DAMASO
G.R. No. 93516 August 12, 1992
FACTS: Lt. Candido Quijardo, a Philippine Constabulary officer and some companions were
sent to verify the presence of CPP/NPA members in Barangay Catacdang, Arellano-Bani,
Dagupan City. In said place, the persons apprehended revealed that there was an
underground safe house at Gracia Village in Urdaneta, Pangasinan.
The group proceeded to Bonuan, Dagupan City, and put under surveillance the rented
apartment of Rosemarie Aritumba, sister of Berlina Aritumba whom they earlier arrested. They
interviewed Luzviminda Morados. She guided the group to the house rented by appellant.
When they reached the house, the group found that it had already been vacated by the
occupants. The barangay captain of the place then pointed out the new house rented by
appellant. When they reached the house, the group saw Luz Tanciangco outside. They told
her that they already knew that she was a member of the NPA in the area. Upon entering the
house, the group saw radio sets, pamphlets entitled "Ang Bayan," xerox copiers and a
computer machine. When Luz Tanciangco opened one of the rooms, they saw books used for
subversive orientation, one M-14 rifle, bullets and ammunitions, Kenwood radio, artificial
beard, maps and other items. Said persons revealed that appellant was the lessee of the
house and owned the items confiscated therefrom. The accused-appellant, Basilio Damaso,
was originally charged with violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 in furtherance of, or
incident to, or in connection with the crime of subversion.
ISSUE: Was there a lawful search and seizure?
HELD: No. The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is enshrined in the
Constitution. However, such right is not absolute. There are instances when a warrantless
search and seizure becomes valid, namely: (1) search incidental to an arrest; (2) search of a
moving vehicle; and (3) seizure of evidence in plain view. None of these exceptions is present
in this case.
The Solicitor General argues otherwise. He claims that the group of Lt. Quijardo entered the
appellant's house upon invitation of Luz Tanciangco and Luzviminda Morados, helper of the
appellant. This is erroneous. The constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches
and seizures, being personal one, cannot be waived by anyone except the person
whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly authorized to do so in his or her
behalf.
In the case at bar, the records show that appellant was not in his house at that time Luz
Tanciangco and Luz Morados, his alleged helper, allowed the authorities to enter it. There is
no evidence that would establish the fact that Luz Morados was indeed the appellant's helper
or if it was true that she was his helper, that the appellant had given her authority to open his
house in his absence. The prosecution likewise failed to show if Luz Tanciangco has such an
authority. Without this evidence, the authorities' intrusion into the appellant's dwelling cannot
be given any color of legality. While the power to search and seize is necessary to the public
welfare, still it must be exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the constitutional
rights of the citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify
indifference to the basic principles of government. As a consequence, the search conducted
by the authorities was illegal. It would have been different if the situation here demanded
urgency which could have prompted the authorities to dispense with a search warrant. But the
record is silent on this point. The fact that they came to the house of the appellant at nighttime,
does not grant them the license to go inside his house.

2. SPS VEROY vs LAYAGUE - G.R. No. 95630 June 18, 1992

Facts: Petitioners formerly reside at a house in Skyline Village, Davao City but due to the promotion
of Leopoldo to the position of Assistant Administrator of the SSS, the family transferred to a
residence in Kamias, Quezon City. The spouses hold the keys to the house (bedroom and
children’s rooms) except the key to the kitchen, where the circuit breakers are located, and it was
in the possession of the caretakers to use in case of emergency.
After sometime, Capt. Obrero of PC/INP raided the house in Davao due to information that
the house is being used as a safehouse of rebels. They were able to enter the yard through the
caretakers but was not able to proceed further because the owners (petitioners) were not present
and they did not have a search warrant. Ma. Luisa was then contacted by phone by Capt. Obrero
to ask permission to search the house. She responded that she will be flying to Davao to witness
the search but she changed her mind, and allowed the search on the condition that the search
should be done in the presence of Major Macasaet, a family friend.
Gaining their permission, they entered the house and conducted the search. They were
able to enter the kitchen because of the key given to the caretaker but they employed a locksmith
to open the padlock of the children’s room. In that room, they found a .45 caliber handgun and
magazine with 7 live bullets in a clutch bag, 3 half-full jute sacks containing printed materials of
RAM-SFP, assorted clothing. The petitioners were then charged for illegal possession of firearms
and ammunitions in furtherance of rebellion. Petitioners contend that the permission given to the
officers were only for the purpose of ascertaining the presence of the alleged rebel soldiers. It did
not include the authority to conduct a room to room search.
Issue: Was there a valid waiver of their right against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Held: None. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures (Article III, Section 2 of
the 1987 Constitution). However, the rule that searches and seizures must be supported by a valid
warrant is not an absolute one. Among the recognized exceptions thereto are: (1) a search
incidental to an arrest; (2) a search of a moving vehicle; and (3) seizure of evidence in plain view.
None of these exceptions pertains to the case at bar. The reason for searching the house
of herein petitioner is that it was reportedly being used as a hideout and recruitment center for rebel
soldiers. While Capt. Obrero was able to enter the compound, he did not enter the house because
he did not have a search warrant and the owners were not present. This shows that he himself
recognized the need for a search warrant, hence, he did not persist in entering the house but rather
contacted the Veroys to seek permission to enter the same. Permission was indeed granted by Ma.
Luisa Veroy to enter the house but only to ascertain the presence of rebel soldiers. Under the
circumstances it is undeniable that the police officers had ample time to procure a search warrant
but did not.
In a number of cases decided by this ,Court, warrantless searches were declared illegal
because the officials conducting the search had every opportunity to secure a search warrant. The
objects seized, being products of illegal searches, were inadmissible in evidence in the criminal
actions subsequently instituted against the accused-appellants.

HABEAS DATA
1. VIVARES vs ST THERESA’S COLLEGE- G.R. No. 202666 September 29, 2014
Facts: Julia, Julienne, Angela are graduating students of St. Therese College (STC). Few
months before their graduation the went to a beach party where they took digital pictures of
themselves clad only in their undergarments. Angela uploaded the pictures on her facebook
account. Escudero, STC-HS teacher, was told of it, her students logged in to their respective
facebook accounts and showed her the photos of the identified students. It was also claimed
that these photos are viewable by any facebook user. Escudero reported the matter for
appropriate action. Following an investigation, STC found the student violating the Student
Handbook and as part of their penalty, they are barred from joining the commencement
exercises scheduled. Their parents filed a Petition for Injunction and Damages before the RTC
of Cebu City against STC, et al., praying that defendants be enjoined from implementing the
sanction. The respondents filed their memorandum, containing printed copies of the
photographs in issue as annexes. The RTC issued a TRO allowing the students to attend the
graduation ceremony but STC still barred the students from participating in the graduation rites.
Thereafter, petitioners filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Data on the basis of
the following considerations:

2. The privacy setting of their children’s Facebook accounts was set at "Friends Only."
They, thus, have a reasonable expectation of privacy which must be respected.

4. 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 STC’s officials. Thus, the Facebook
accounts of petitioners’ children were intruded upon;

6. All the data and digital images that were extracted were boldly broadcasted by
respondents through their memorandum submitted to the RTC.

To petitioners, the interplay of the foregoing constitutes an invasion of their children’s privacy and,
thus, prayed that a writ of habeas data be issued. Respondents on their verified return argued that
the instant case is not one where a writ of habeas data may issue and there can be no violation of
their right to privacy as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on Facebook.

Issue: whether or not there was indeed an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in
the life, liberty, or security of the minors involved in this case.

Ruling: STC did not violate petitioners’ daughters’ right to privacy. Before one can have an
expectation of privacy in his or her OSN activity, it is first necessary that said user, in this case the
children of petitioners, manifest the intention to keep certain posts private, through the employment
of measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility. And this intention can materialize in
cyberspace through the utilization of the OSN’s privacy tools. In other words, utilization of these
privacy tools is the manifestation, in cyber world, of the user’s invocation of his or her right to
informational privacy.

Therefore, a Facebook user who opts to make use of a privacy tool to grant or deny access to his
or her post or profile detail should not be denied the informational privacy right which necessarily
accompanies said choice. Otherwise, using these privacy tools would be a feckless exercise, such
that if, for instance, a user uploads a photo or any personal information to his or her Facebook page
and sets its privacy level at "Only Me" or a custom list so that only the user or a chosen few can
view it, said photo would still be deemed public by the courts as if the user never chose to limit the
photo’s visibility and accessibility. Such position, if adopted, will not only strip these privacy tools of
their function but it would also disregard the very intention of the user to keep said photo or
information within the confines of his or her private space.

It is, thus, incumbent upon internet users to exercise due diligence in their online dealings and
activities and must not be negligent in protecting their rights. Equity serves the vigilant. Demanding
relief from the courts, as here, requires that claimants themselves take utmost care in safeguarding
a right which they allege to have been violated. These are indispensable. We cannot afford
protection to persons if they themselves did nothing to place the matter within the confines of their
private zone. OSN users must be mindful enough to learn the use of privacy tools, to use them if
they desire to keep the information private, and to keep track of changes in the available privacy
settings, such as those of Facebook, especially because Facebook is notorious for changing these
settings and the site's layout often. In finding that respondent STC and its officials did not violate
the minors' privacy rights.