Cadajas v People 
G.R. No. 247348. November 16, 2021

Facts: 

Petitioner Cadajas, then 24 years old, courted AAA, a 14-year-old girl, who had a crush on him. BBB, the mother of AAA, disapproved of their relationship but petitioner and AAA ignored her admonishment. AAA, using her mother's cellphone, would converse with petitioner on Facebook Messenger. In one occasion, AAA forgot to log out of her Facebook account on BBB's phone. Thus, BBB was able to read AAA's conversation with petitioner. BBB found that petitioner coaxed AAA to send him photos of the latter's private parts, to which AAA relented. When AAA learned that BBB read their conversation, she rushed to a computer shop to delete her messages. However, since petitioner gave AAA the password to his Facebook account, BBB was able to force AAA to open his account to get a copy of their conversation.

The trial court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 4(c)(2) of R.A. No. 10175 in relation to Sections 4(a), 3(b) and (c)(5) of R.A. No. 9775. The CA affirmed the decision. Thus, petitioner appealed to the SC. 

Petitioner claimed that the photos presented in evidence during the trial of the case were taken from his Facebook messenger account. According to him, this amounted to a violation of his right to privacy, and therefore, any evidence obtained in violation thereof amounts to a fruit of the poisonous tree.


Issue: 

Is the prosecution's evidence inadmissible for violating petitioner's right to privacy?


Held: 

No.

While the Bill of Rights under the Constitution highlights the importance of the right to privacy and its consequent effect on the rules on admissibility of evidence, one must not lose sight of the fact that the Bill of Rights was intended to protect private individuals against government intrusions. Hence, its provisions are not applicable between and amongst private individuals.

In the case of petitioner, the Facebook Messenger chat thread was not obtained through the efforts of police officers or any State agent but by AAA, a private individual who had access to the photos and conversations in the chat thread. 

Neither can AAA be said to have violated the petitioner's privacy considering that he voluntarily gave his password to AAA. Petitioner, in effect, has authorized AAA to access the same. Having been given authority to access his Facebook Messenger account, petitioner's reasonable expectation of privacy, in so far as AAA is concerned, had been limited. Thus, there is no violation of privacy to speak of.

Even if AAA was only forced by her mother to obtain the photos and messages, there is still no violation of the petitioner's privacy, since by allowing another person access to his account, the petitioner made its contents available not only to AAA but to other persons AAA might show the account to, whether she be forced or not to do so. 

In any case, petitioner failed to raise his objection to the admissibility of the photos during the proceedings in the RTC. Basic is the rule that in order to exclude evidence, the objection to admissibility of evidence must be made at the proper time, and the grounds therefore be specified. By failing to timely raise his objection to the admissibility of the photos, petitioner is deemed to have already waived the same. Thus, the photos taken from his Facebook Messenger account are admissible in evidence.