｡ ˚୨ BILL OF RIGHTS ୧˚｡ ⋆ The RTC acquitted the petitioner of the charge under

R.A. No. 7610 but found him guilty of violating R.A. No.
10175.

Cadajas vs. People, GR No. 247348 (2021) ISSUES

The main issue raised in this case is whether the

Doctrine:
evidence obtained from the petitioner's Facebook
Messenger account should be excluded due to a
The SC reiterated the doctrine that crimes committed
violation of his right to privacy.
through a computer system that falls under child
pornography are punished one degree higher than those
outlined in the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009. It
also established that the right to privacy argument does RULING
not extend to evidence obtained from a private The court ruled that the evidence obtained from the
individual’s actions, distinguishing between state petitioner's Facebook Messenger account is admissible
versus private actors in the context of evidence and upheld the petitioner's conviction for child
admissibility. pornography.

Ratio:

FACTS: The court first discusses the concept of the right to

privacy, stating that it encompasses the right not to be
This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari
exposed on the internet in matters involving one's
filed by Christian Cadajas y Cabias (petitioner) against
private life. It also includes the right to prevent the first
the People of the Philippines (respondent). The
disclosure of information and the right to prevent the
petitioner is challenging the Decision and Resolution
storage of data. The court emphasizes that the right to
rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed
privacy, as recognized in the Constitution, is primarily
with modification the Joint Decision of the Regional
intended to protect individuals against government
Trial Court (RTC) finding the petitioner guilty of violating
intrusions and is not applicable between private
Section 4 (c) (2) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10175, in
individuals.
relation to Sections 4 (a), 3 (b) and (c) (5) of R.A. No.
9775. The court then examines whether the evidence
obtained from the petitioner's Facebook Messenger
The petitioner, who was 24 years old at the time, met
account should be admissible. It concludes that since
the victim, AAA, who was only 14 years old, in the
the evidence was obtained by a private individual and
canteen where he works. Their relationship started
not by the state or its agents, the rules on admissibility
when AAA's younger sibling told the petitioner that AAA
under the Constitution do not apply. The court also
had a crush on him. They began exchanging messages
notes that the evidence was properly authenticated by
on Facebook Messenger and eventually became
the victim in open court and that the Data Privacy Act
sweethearts. However, AAA's mother disapproved of
allows the processing of data and sensitive personal
their relationship because AAA was still a minor.
information for the determination of criminal liability.
Despite her mother's admonishment, the petitioner
continued to communicate with AAA and even asked Regarding the petitioner's claim of a violation of his
her to send him explicit photos of her breasts and right to privacy, the court applies the "reasonable
vagina. AAA complied, but when her mother discovered expectation of privacy" test. It finds that the petitioner
their conversation, she forced AAA to open the voluntarily gave his Facebook Messenger password to
petitioner's Facebook messenger account and obtain a the victim, thereby authorizing her to access his
copy of their conversation. account. The court concludes that the petitioner's
reasonable expectation of privacy, in relation to the
The petitioner was charged with violation of
victim, had been limited, and therefore, there was no
• Section 10 (a) of R.A. No. 7610 violation of privacy.
• Child pornography under Section 4 (c) (2) of R.A. No. The court also addresses the petitioner's failure to
10175 in relation to Sections 4 (a), 3 (b) (c) (5) of timely raise his objection to the admissibility of the
R.A. No. 9775. photos during the proceedings in the trial court. It states
that objections to evidence must be made at the proper
time and that failure to-do so results in a waiver of the
objection. Therefore, the court deems the photos He claimed that he did not possess a firearm and was
admissible. not present during the alleged incidents. Bote also
argued that his communication with the local police
Finally, the court finds the petitioner guilty of violating
was intended to ensure community safety, not to exert
the Anti-Child Pornography Act based on the evidence
his authority as mayor.
presented by the prosecution. It establishes that the
victim was a minor, that she was induced to send The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon initially
explicit photos, and that the photos were performed dismissed the administrative complaint for lack of
through electronic means. substantial evidence, stating that SPCPI failed to prove
that Bote had a firearm or abused his position. However,
the Ombudsman did not address the charge of culpable
Bote v. San Pedro Cineplex violation of the Constitution, noting that SPCPI did not
specify which constitutional provision was violated.
G.R. No. 203471 (September 14, 2020)
SPCPI sought reconsideration, which was denied,
Doctrine: leading to a petition for certiorari with the Court of
Appeals (CA). The CA modified the Ombudsman’ s
• Doctrine of Condonation: Prior to its abandonment, decision, affirming the dismissal of the charges related
re-election absolved elected officials of to the Local Government Code and abuse of authorit y
administrative liability for acts during prior terms. due to Bote's re-election but found him guilty of
culpable violation of the Constitution for his illegal and
• Bill of Rights Limitation: Constitutional protections, oppressive acts.
such as due process, apply against state action, not
private individual actions. Issues:

SC dismissed misconduct complaint against Mayor 1. Whether the CA erred in modifying the
Bote, citing lack of link to official duties. Ombudsman’s decision and holding Bote guilty of
culpable violation of the Constitution.
Facts: 2. Whether the doctrine of condonation applies to the
charges against Bote given his re-election.
This case arose from an administrative complaint filed
by Rolando C. Salonga on behalf of San Pedro Cineplex Arguments:
Properties, Inc. (SPCPI) against Virgilio A. Bote, the
then-incumbent mayor of General Tinio, Nueva Ecija. Petitioner (Bote):
The complaint alleged that Bote violated Section
Bote contended that he was merely exercising his rights
444(b)(2)(iv) of Republic Act No. 7160 (the Local
as a property owner and that the question of ownership
Government Code), abused his authority, and
had not been resolved. He argued that the acts in
committed a culpable violation of the Constitution. The
question were continuous and should be considered
dispute centered around a real property located in
condoned by his re-election. He also claimed that the
Landayan, San Pedro, Laguna, which Bote claime d
CA's findings were premature and lacked a basis for
belonged to the heirs of Manuel Humada Enano.
administrative liability.
On September 8, 2009, a trial court ruled in favor of the
Respondent (SPCPI):
heirs of Enano in a quieting of title case. SPCPI
contended that on September 12, 2009, Bote,
SPCPI argued that Bote's actions constituted a culpable
accompanied by armed men, attempted to forcibly
violation of the Constitution, as they were directed at
enter the disputed property, harassing SPCPI's security
individuals outside his jurisdiction as mayor. They
guards and damaging the premises. The security
contended that the doctrine of condonation should not
guards subsequently filed criminal charges for
apply since the acts were committed in a private
attempted murder against Bote and the armed men,
capacity and not in relation to his official duties.
which were later dismissed.
Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:
In response to the administrative complaint, Bote
denied the allegations, asserting that he had hired
The Supreme Court granted Bote's petition, annulling
security personnel to protect the property and that he
the CA's decision and dismissing the administrative
was acting in defense of his rights as a property owner.
complaint against him. The Court held that the charges FACTS:
against Bote for violation of the Local Government
Code and abuse of authority were correctly dismissed Herein petitioner was charged with illegal possession of
by the CA due to the application of the doctrine of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article 2 of RA 9165.
condonation, which states that re-election serves to The prosecution alleged that two Bantay Bayan
condone misconduct committed during a previous term. operatives responded to the report of a man showing
off his private parts, which was later identified as the
However, the Court found that the acts constituting the petitioner. Thereafter, they found two rolls of marijuana
alleged culpable violation of the Constitution were in the pocket of the petitioner. This prompted them to
committed by Bote in his private capacity, not as a seize the said items and bring the petitioner to the
municipal mayor. The Court emphasized that police station to turn him in, along with the seized
misconduct must relate directly to the performance of marijuana.
official duties to be subject to administrative liability.
Since Bote's actions were private in nature and arose Meanwhile, the petitioner pleaded not guilty and
from a property dispute, the Bill of Rights, which contended that the two rolls of marijuana were only
protects against state actions, was not applicable in presented to him when he came back to the barangay
this context. hall.

The Court concluded that there was no basis for holding The RTC found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable
Bote administratively liable for culpable violation of the doubt of the crime charged and further ruled that the
Constitution, as the allegations did not pertain to his warrantless arrest of the petitioner was valid, as he was
official functions. Therefore, the administrative charge scandalously showing his private parts in public. The
was dismissed for lack of cause of action. resultant search incidental to such arrest, which
resulted in the seizure of marijuana from the petitioner,
Significant Legal Principles Established: was also lawful. The CA affirmed this decision, hence,
this appeal.
1. The doctrine of condonation applies to
administrative liability for misconduct committed ISSUE:
by an elective official during a previous term,
provided such misconduct is related to the Whether the CA correctly upheld the petitioner’ s
performance of official duties. conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs?
2. Culpable violation of the Constitution must be
linked to actions taken in an official capacity; acts RULING:
committed in a private capacity do not fall under
No, the CA erred in upholding the petitioner’s conviction.
administrative jurisdiction.
3. The Bill of Rights protects individuals from state
The petitioner’s arresting officers are not government
actions and cannot be invoked in disputes between
agents in charge of law enforcement but merely civilian
private parties.
volunteers who act as force multipliers to assist the law
enforcement agencies in maintaining peace and
security within their designated areas.

MIGUEL v. PEOPLE
It is true that the Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against
the acts of private individuals, the same may
July 31, 2017
nevertheless be applicable if such individuals act under
DOCTRINE: To Whom Directed the color of a state-related function. Therefore, the
Court is convinced that the acts of the Bantay Bayan in
It is true that the Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against preserving peace and order in their respective areas
the acts of private individuals, the same may have the color of a state-related function. Thus, they are
nevertheless be applicable if such individuals act under deemed law enforcement authorities for the purpose of
the color of a state-related function. Therefore, the applying the Bill of Rights.
Court is convinced that the acts of the Bantay Bayan in
preserving peace and order in their respective areas To protect the people from unreasonable searches and
have the color of a state-related function. Thus, they are seizures, Section 3(2) of the Bill of Rights provides that
deemed law enforcement authorities for the purpose of evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of
applying the Bill of Rights. unreasonable search and seizure is deemed tainted and
should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a which finds support in the deliberations of the
poisonous tree. Constitutional Commission.

An arrest may be made with or without a warrant. In FACTS:

both instances, the officer’s personal knowledge of the
fact of the commission of an offense is essential. In this On August 14, 1987, Andre Marti (the appellant) and his
case, the prosecution's claim that the petitioner was common-law wife, Shirley Reyes, went to the booth of
showing off his private parts was belied. The the "Manila Packing and Export Forwarders" in the
circumstances in this case do not justify the conduct of Pistang Pilipino Complex, Ermita, Manila, carrying with
a warrantless arrest, considering that there was no them four gift-wrapped packages. Anita attended to
overt act constituting a crime committed by the them. The appellant informed Anita that he was sending
petitioner, nor was there personal knowledge of the the packages to a friend in Zurich, Switzerland. The
offense on the part of the Bantay Bayan operatives. appellant filled up the contract necessary for the
transaction, writing therein his name, passport number,
All told, the Bantay Bayan operatives conducted an the date of shipment, and the name and address of the
illegal search on the person of the petitioner. consignee (WALTER FIERZ, Mattacketr II, 8052 Zurich,
Consequently, the marijuana purportedly seized from Switzerland).
him on account of such search is rendered inadmissible
in evidence pursuant to the exclusionary rule unde r Anita then asked the appellant if she could examine and
Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Since inspect the packages. The appellant, however, refused,
the confiscated marijuana is the very corpus delicti of assuring her that the packages simply contained gifts
the crime charged, the petitioner must necessarily be to his friend in Zurich. Thus, she no longer insisted on
acquitted and exonerated from criminal liability. inspecting the packages. The packages were then
prepared for shipment.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision
dated October 21, 2015 and the Resolution dated Before delivery of appellant's box to the Bureau of
September 5, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. Customs and/or Bureau of Posts, Mr. Job Reyes
CR No. 35318 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. (proprietor) and husband of Anita, following standard
Accordingly, petitioner Jeffrey Miguel y Remegio is operating procedure, opened the boxes for final
ACQUITTED of the crime of illegal possession of inspection. When he opened appellant's box, a peculiar
dangerous drugs defined and penalized under Section odor emitted therefrom. His curiosity aroused, he
11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Director of squeezed one of the bundles allegedly containing
the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his gloves and felt dried leaves inside. Opening one of the
immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held for bundles, he pulled out a cellophane wrapper and took
any other reason. several grams of the contents thereof.

Job Reyes forthwith prepared a letter reporting the

shipment to the NBI and requesting a laboratory
People v. Marti examination of the samples he extracted from the
cellophane wrapper. He brought the letter and a sample
G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991 of appellant's shipment to the Narcotics Section of the
NBI in the afternoon of that date. Job Reyes informed
DOCTRINE: the NBI that the rest of the shipment was still in his
office. Therefore, Job Reyes and three NBI agents, and
In the absence of governmental interference, the
a photographer, went to the Reyes' office at Ermita,
liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be
Manila.
invoked against the State.
Job Reyes brought out the box in which appellant's
Second, the mere presence of the NBI agents did not
packages were placed and, in the presence of the NBI
convert the reasonable search effected by Reyes into a
agents, opened the top flaps, removed the styrofoam,
warrantless search and seizure proscribed by the
and took out the cellophane wrappers from inside the
Constitution. Merely to observe and look at that which
gloves. Dried marijuana leaves were found to have been
is in plain sight is not a search.
contained inside the cellophane wrappers.

The Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not

The package, which allegedly contained books, was
meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals,
likewise opened by Job Reyes. He discovered that the
package contained bricks or cake-like dried marijuana • Sec. 3. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this
leaves. The package, which allegedly contained or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for
tabacalera cigars, was also opened to show that dried any purpose in any proceeding.
marijuana leaves were neatly stocked underneath the
cigars. In a number of cases, the Court strictly adhered to the
exclusionary rule and has struck down the admissibility
The NBI agents made an inventory and took charge of of evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional
the box and the contents thereof. safeguard against unreasonable searches and seizures.
It must be noted, however, that in all those cases
Thereupon, the NBI agents tried to locate appellant but adverted to, the evidence so obtained was invariably
to no avail. Appellant's stated address in his passport procured by the State acting through the medium of its
being the Manila Central Post Office, the agents law enforcers or other authorized government agencies.
requested assistance from the latter's Chief Security.
On August 27, 1987, appellant, while claiming his mail On the other hand, this case assumes a peculiar
at the Central Post Office, was invited by the NBI to shed character since the evidence sought to be excluded was
light on the attempted shipment of the seized dried primarily discovered and obtained by a private person,
leaves. On the same day, the Narcotics Section of the acting in a private capacity and without the intervention
NBI submitted the dried leaves to the Forensic and participation of State authorities. Under the
Chemistry Section for laboratory examination. It turned circumstances, may an act of a private individual,
out that the dried leaves were marijuana flowering tops allegedly in violation of appellant's constitutional rights,
as certified by the forensic chemist. be invoked against the State?

Thereafter, an Information was filed against appellant We hold in the negative. In the absence of governmental
for violation of RA 6425, otherwise known as the interference, the liberties guaranteed by the
Dangerous Drugs Act. Constitution cannot be invoked against the State.

ISSUES: As the Court held in Villanueva v. Querubin:

Whether or not the evidence subject of the imputed This constitutional right (against unreasonable search
offense had been obtained in violation of his and seizure) refers to the immunity of one's person,
constitutional rights against unreasonable search and whether citizen or alien, from interference by
seizure and privacy of communication. government, included in which is his residence, his
papers, and other possessions xxx The contraband in
RULING: the case at bar having come into possession of the
Government without the latter transgressing appellant's
NO. rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the
Court sees no cogent reason why the same should not
Sections 2 and 3, Article III of the Constitution provide:
be admitted against him in the prosecution of the
offense charged. The mere presence of the NBI agents
• Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their
did not convert the reasonable search effected by
persons, houses, papers, and effects against
Reyes into a warrantless search and seizure proscribed
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
by the Constitution. Merely to observe and look at that
nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and
which is in plain sight is not a search. Having observed
no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
that which is open, where no trespass has been
except upon probable cause to be determined
committed in aid thereof, is not search. Where the
personally by the judge after examination under
contraband articles are identified without a trespass on
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
the part of the arresting officer, there is not the search
witnesses he may produce, and particularly
that is prohibited by the constitution.
describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
Further, alleged violations against unreasonable search
• Sec. 3. (1) The privacy of communication and
and seizure may only be invoked against the State by an
correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
individual unjustly traduced by the exercise of sovereign
lawful order of the court, or when public safety or
authority. To agree with appellant that an act of a
order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
private individual in violation of the Bill of Rights should
also be construed as an act of the State would result in
serious legal complications and an absurd
interpretation of the constitution.

Similarly, the admissibility of the evidence procured by

an individual effected through private seizure equally
applies, in pari passu, to the alleged violation, non-
governmental as it is, of appellant's constitutional rights
to privacy and communication.

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction finding

appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.