SECTION 3 – PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
communication received in confidence by one from the other during the
Exclusionary Rule vs. Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine
Example 1: The police illegally search D’s car and find drugs. The drugs will be
excluded as evidence in the case against D in accordance with the Exclusionary
Rule. (Principal/Primary Evidence)
Example 2: The police conduct an illegal search of D’s home and find a map
showing the location of a well-hidden, remotely located outdoor marijuana field.
The police go to the field and seize the marijuana. Under the doctrine of "fruit of the
poisonous tree," the marijuana will be excluded as evidence in the case against D
as it stemmed directly from an illegal search. (Secondary Evidence)
Ramirez vs. CA and Garcia
 Petitioner filed a complaint against private respondent Garcia who
allegedly vexed, insulted and humiliated the former in a "hostile and furious
mood" and in a manner offensive to petitioner's dignity and personality," in
a confrontation in the office of the latter.
 The provision of Sec. 1 of R.A. 4200 clearly and unequivocally makes it
illegal for any person, not authorized by all the parties to any private
communication to secretly record such communication by means of a tape
recorder.
 The law makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to be
penalized by the statute ought to be a party other than or different from
those involved in the private communication. The statute's intent to
penalize all persons unauthorized to make such recording is underscored
by the use of the qualifier "any".
 Consequently, as respondent Court of Appeals correctly concluded, "even
a (person) privy to a communication who records his private conversation
with another without the knowledge of the latter (will) qualify as a violator"
under this provision of R.A. 4200.
Zulueta vs. CA and Martin
 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
marriage, save for specified exceptions. Indeed, the documents and
papers in question are inadmissible in evidence.
Navarro vs. CA
 Petitioner Felipe Navarro (policeman) was found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of homicide by boxing the said Ike Lingan (reporter of a radio station
DWTI in Lucena City, went to Entertainment city to watch nude dancers) in
the head with the butt of a gun and thereafter when the said victim fell, by
banging his head against the concrete pavement which directly caused his
death.
 Unknown to petitioner Navarro, Jalbuena (took a picture of the nude
dancers) was able to record on tape the exchange between petitioner and
the deceased.
 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.
Ople vs. Torres
 Petitioner Ople prays that we invalidate Administrative Order No. 308
(issued by President Fidel V. Ramos) entitled "Adoption of a National
Computerized Identification Reference System" on two important
constitutional grounds, viz: one, it is a usurpation of the power of Congress
to legislate, and two, it impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry's protected
zone of privacy.
 He alleges that A.O. No. 308 establishes a system of identification that is
all-encompassing in scope, affects the life and liberty of every Filipino
citizen and foreign resident, and more particularly, violates their right to
privacy.
 One of the basic distinctions between absolute and limited government.
Ultimate and pervasive control of the individual, in all aspects of his life, is
the hallmark of the absolute state. In contrast, a system of limited
government safeguards a private sector, which belongs to the individual,
firmly distinguishing it from the public sector, which the state can control.
 The reasonableness of a person's expectation of privacy depends on a
two-part test: (1) whether by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an
expectation of privacy (Subjective); and (2) whether this expectation is one
that society recognizes as reasonable (Objective). 
 The factual circumstances of the case determine the reasonableness of
the expectation. However, other factors, such as customs, physical
 surroundings and practices of a particular activity, may serve to create or
diminish this expectation.
 The purposes of A.O. No. 308 are: (1) to streamline and speed up the
implementation of basic government services, (2) eradicate fraud by
avoiding duplication of services, and (3) generate population data for
development planning.
 In no uncertain terms, we also underscore that the right to privacy does not
bar all incursions into individual privacy. The right is not intended to stifle
scientific and technological advancements that enhance public service and
the common good. It merely requires that the law be narrowly focused, and
a compelling interest justify such intrusions.
 The right to privacy is one of the most threatened rights of man living in a
mass society. The threats emanate from various sources.
Disini vs. Secretary of Justice
 The case arises out of consolidated petitions against the constitutionality of
several provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 or Act No.
10175.
 Act is the government’s platform in combating illegal cyberspace activities,
but 21 separate sections of the Act violate their constitutional rights,
particularly the right to freedom of expression and access to information.
 The Court declared Sections 4(c)(3), 12, and 19 of the Act as
unconstitutional.
 Section 4(c)(3) prohibits the transmission of unsolicited commercial
electronic communications, commonly known as spams, that seek to
advertise, sell, or offer for sale of products and services.
 Court noted that spams are a category of commercial speech. Prohibition
on transmitting unsolicited communications would deny a person the right
to read his emails, even unsolicited commercial ads addressed to him.
 Section 12 of the Act authorizes the law enforcement without a court
warrant to collect or record traffic data in real-time associated with
specified communications transmitted by means of a computer system.
 The Petitioners argued that such warrantless authority curtails their civil
liberties and set the stage for abuse of discretion by the government.
 Section 19 authorizes the Department of Justice to restrict or block access
to a computer data found to be in violation of the Act.
 The Court recognized that computer data constitutes a personal property,
entitled to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Also,
the Constitution requires the government to secure a valid judicial warrant
when it seeks to seize a personal property or to block a form of expression.
Vivares vs. St. Theresa’s College
 To the trial court, petitioners failed to prove the existence of an actual or
threatened violation of the minors’ right to privacy, one of the preconditions
for the issuance of the writ of habeas data.
 Moreover, the court upheld that the photos, having been uploaded on
Facebook (Friend’s only setting) without restrictions as to who may view
them, lost their privacy in some way.
 Besides, the RTC noted, STC gathered the photographs through legal
means and for a legal purpose, that is, the implementation of the school’s
policies and rules on discipline.
 As applied, even assuming that the photos in issue are visible only to the
sanctioned students’ Facebook friends, respondent STC can hardly be
taken to task for the perceived privacy invasion since it was the minors’
Facebook friends who showed the pictures to Tigol.
 Respondents were mere recipients of what were posted. They did not
resort to any unlawful means of gathering the information as it was
voluntarily given to them by persons who had legitimate access to the said
posts.
 Clearly, the fault, if any, lies with the friends of the minors. Curiously
enough, however, neither the minors nor their parents imputed any
violation of privacy against the students who showed the images to
Escudero.
 Furthermore, petitioners failed to prove their contention that respondents
reproduced and broadcasted the photographs. In fact, what petitioners
attributed to respondents as an act of offensive disclosure was no more
than the actuality that respondents appended said photographs in their
memorandum submitted to the trial court.