SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW
MENDIOLA, MANILA

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

Case Digests
Section 3. Privacy of Communication and Correspondence

SUBMITTED TO:
ATTY. JOSE ANGELO DAVID

SUBMITTED BY:
Group 2, Section 1- K
Araneta, Marcie Denise C.
Balonglong, Marf Hyacinth V.
De Castro, Patrice Grace
Dumaguing, Henemiah Faith R.
Frias, Selina Bianca D.
Ibarreta, Ricci Jazelle
Literato, Shaira Mae M.
Olasiman, Frances Isabella P.
Padilla, John Luke S.
Valle, Jose Jun
Quanico, Anna Katrina G.
Suplico, Philip Christian M.

1. Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 93833, September 28, 1995] Dumaguing
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD

2. Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 107383, February, 20, 1996] Frias
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
 3. Navarro vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 121087, August 26, 1999] Literato

FACTS: At around 8:40 pm of February 4, 1990, Stanley Jalbuena and Enrique "Ike" Lingan, who were
reporters of the radio station DWTI, together with one Mario Ilagan, went to the Entertainment City
following reports that it was showing the nude dancers. After they had seated themselves at a table and
ordered beer, a scantily clad dancer appeared on stage and began to perform a strip act. As she removed
her brassieres, Jalbuena took a picture. The floor manager, Dante Liquin, with a security guard, Alex
Sioco, approached Jalbuena and demanded to know why he took a picture, which resulted to a heated
argument. When Jalbuena saw that Sioco was about to pull out his gun, he ran out of the joint followed by
his companions.

Jalbuena and his companions went to the police station to report the matter. Three of the policeman on
duty, including petitioner Navarro, were having drinks in front of the police station. In a while, Liquin
and Sioco arrived on a motorcycle and were met by petitioner Navarro who talked with them in a corner
for around 15 minutes. Afterwards, Navarro turned to Jalbuena and pushed him to the wall and cursed
him. Navarro then pulled out his firearm and cocked it, and pressed it on the face of Jalbuena. Lingan
intervened. Navarro turned to Sgt. Añonuevo and told him to make of record the behavior of the 2
reporters. Lingan and Navarro then had a heated exchange. As Lingan was about turn away, petitioner
Navarro hit him with the handle of the pistol above the left eyebrow. Lingan fell on the floor, blood
flowing down his face. He tried to get up, but Navarro gave him a fist blow on the forehead which floored
him. Lingan died from his injuries. Unknown to petitioner Navarro, Jalbuena was able to record on tape
the exchange between petitioner and the deceased.

ISSUE: Whether or not the tape is admissible as evidence in view of R.A. No. 4200, which prohibits
wiretapping

HELD: Yes, it is admissible as evidence. Sec. 1 or RA 4200 provides that 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. Simply, the law prohibits the overhearing,
intercepting, or recording of private communications. Since the exchange between petitioner Navarro and
Lingan was not private, its tape recording is not prohibited. Nor is there any question that it was duly
authenticated. A voice recording is authenticated by the testimony of a witness (1) that he personally
recorded the conversations; (2) that the tape played in the court was the one he recorded; and (3) that the
voices on the tape are those of the persons such are claimed to belong. In the instant case, Jalbuena
testified that he personally made the voice recording; that the tape played in the court was the one he
recorded; and that the speakers on the tape were petitioner Navarro and Lingan. A sufficient foundation
was thus laid for the authentication of the tape presented by the prosecution.

4. Ople vs. Torres [G.R. No. 127685, July 23. 1998] Olasiman
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD
 5. Vivares v. STC [G.R. No. 202666, September 29, 2014] Padilla

FACTS: Julia and Julienne, both minors, were graduating high school students at St. Theresa’s College
(STC), Cebu City. Sometime in January 2012, while changing into their swimsuits for a beach party they
were about to attend, Julia and Julienne, along with several others, took digital pictures of themselves clad
only in their undergarments. These pictures were then uploaded by Angela on her Facebook profile.At
STC, Mylene Escudero, a computer teacher at STC’s high school department, learned from her students
that some seniors at STC posted pictures online, depicting themselves from the waist up, dressed only in
brassieres. Escudero then asked her students to logged in to their respective personal Facebook accounts
and showed her photos of the identified students, which include: Julia and Julienne drinking hard liquor
and smoking cigarettes inside a bar; and Julia and Julienne wearing articles of clothing showing their
brassieres. Also, Escudero’s students claimed that there were times when access to or the availability of
the identified students’ photos was not confined to the girls’ Facebook friends, but were, in fact, viewable
by any Facebook user. Investigation ensued. Then Julia, Julienne and other students involved were barred
from joining the commencement exercises.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was indeed a violation of the right to privacy in the life, liberty, or security
of the minors involved in this case.

HELD: None, The Supreme Court held that STC did not violate petitioners’ daughters’ right to privacy
as the subject digital photos were viewable either by the minors’ Facebook friends, or by the public at
large. Without any evidence to corroborate the minors’ statement that the images were visible only to the
five of them, and without their challenging Escudero’s claim that the other students were able to view the
photos, their statements are, at best, self-serving, thus deserving scant consideration. It is well to note that
not one of petitioners disputed Escudero’s sworn account that her students, who are the minors’ Facebook
“friends,” showed her the photos using their own Facebook accounts. This only goes to show that no
special means to be able to view the allegedly private posts were ever resorted to by Escudero’s students,
and that it is reasonable to assume, therefore, that the photos were, in reality, viewable either by (1) their
Facebook friends, or (2) by the public at large. Considering that the default setting for Facebook posts is
“Public,” it can be surmised that the photographs in question were viewable to everyone on Facebook. If
such were the case, they cannot invoke the protection attached to the right to informational privacy.
US v. Gines-Perez: A person who places a photograph on the Internet precisely intends to forsake and
renounce all privacy rights to such imagery, particularly under circumstances such as here, where the
Defendant did not employ protective measures or devices that would have controlled access to the Web
page or the photograph itself. United States v. Maxwell: The more open the method of transmission is, the
less privacy one can reasonably expect. Messages sent to the public at large in the chat room or e-mail
that is forwarded from correspondent to correspondent loses any semblance of privacy.
Thus, it is suggested, that a profile, or even a post, with visibility set at “Friends Only” cannot easily,
more so automatically, be said to be “very private,” contrary to petitioners’ argument.
 6. Gamboa vs. Chan [G.R. No. 193636, July 24, 2012] Quanico

FACTS: On December 2009, former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Administrative Order
No. 275 (A.O. 275), "Creating an Independent Commission to Address the Alleged Existence of Private
Armies in the Country." The body, which was later on referred to as the Zeñarosa Commission, was
formed to investigate the existence of private army groups (PAGs) in the country with a view to
eliminating them before the May 2010 elections and dismantling them permanently in the future.
On July 2010, ABS-CBN broadcasted on its evening news program the portion of the Report
naming Gamboa as one of the politicians alleged to be maintaining a PAG. Gamboa averred that her
association with a PAG also appeared on print media. Thus, she was publicly tagged as someone who
maintains a PAG on the basis of the unverified information that the PNP-Ilocos Norte gathered and
forwarded to the Zeñarosa Commission. As a result, she claimed that her malicious or reckless inclusion
in the enumeration of personalities maintaining a PAG as published in the Report also made her, as well
as her supporters and other people identified with her, susceptible to harassment and police surveillance
operations. 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 Gamboa should be granted the privilege of the writ of habeas data

HELD: No. The writ of habeas data seeks to protect a person’s 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. Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data reads:
Habeas data. – The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy
in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or
storing of data information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved
party.
The determination of whether the privilege of the writ of habeas data, being an extraordinary
remedy, entails a delicate balancing of the alleged intrusion upon the private life of Gamboa and the
relevant state interest involved.
The Court holds that Gamboa was able to sufficiently establish that the data contained in the
Report listing her as a PAG coddler came from the PNP. The forwarding of information by the PNP to the
Zeñarosa Commission was not an unlawful act that violated or threatened her right to privacy in life,
liberty or security. The PNP was rationally expected to forward and share intelligence regarding PAGs
with the body specifically created for the purpose of investigating the existence of these notorious groups.
Moreover, the Zeñarosa Commission was explicitly authorized to deputize the police force in the
fulfillment of the former’s mandate, and thus had the power to request assistance from the latter.
The Court rules 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.

7. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 Suplico

FACTS
ISSUE
HELD

8. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928) Valle

FACTS
ISSUE
HELD