By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III
In a recent meeting with a foreign client, he pointed out to this column that online predators are on the prowl and this, according to him, is because people nowadays don’t look at people’s eyes anymore even if they are conversing, but rather on their smart phones. The meeting happened in a coffee shop and indeed, he pointed to the customers inside and almost all of them were on their phones.
If a crime is committed using cyber space as hunting ground to entice the prey to enter the trap, may chat logs and messages be presented as evidence without violating the right of the suspect to privacy?
Another question, what if a police officer creates a fake or “decoy” account by posing as a conspirator or even a would-be victim and is able to generate a thread of conversation, would the same be admissible as evidence in court?
These questions were answered by the Supreme Court in the recent case of People v. Eul Vincent O. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 263603 , October 9, 2024.
Chat logs and messages are admissible in evidence.
In People v. Eul Vincent O. Rodriguez, it was concluded that chatting online with the suspect for human trafficking is an acceptable means of entrapment and gathering evidence. It does not violate the right to privacy. The online chats generated through the use of a Facebook “decoy account” is admissible in evidence.
The Supreme Court also gave a thumbs down to the argument that there will be a violation of right to privacy of the suspect as he did not consent to the recording of such conversation. Thus, “We reject Rodriguez’s contentions that the recorded chat logs and videos are inadmissible in evidence for violation of his right to privacy. Republic Act No. 10173, also known as the Data Privacy Act of 2012, allows the processing of sensitive personal information when it relates to the determination of criminal liability of a data subject and when necessary for the protection of lawful rights and interests of persons in court proceedings. (People v. Eul Vincent O. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 263603 , October 9, 2024).
Simply stated, when one is committing a crime through online means, they shed their right to privacy. Hiding behind the Data Privacy Act of 2012 is not possible when the purpose of the scrutiny of sensitive information is to determine the presence of criminal liability.
“Identity, plan, system, scheme, or habit”
under Rule 130, Section 34 of the Rules of Evidence.
Finally, not only the chats and online messages related to the crime for which the suspect will be charged in respect to a particular victim, but all other chats and online messages that would show a “pattern, scheme, habit” may be introduced as evidence even if they are in reference to another victim. Thus:
“Moreover, as aptly held by the appellate court, these items are evidence of Rodriguez’s “identity, plan, system, scheme, or habit” under Rule 130, Section 34 of the Rules of Evidence. Here, the videos and chat logs were not offered to prove the existence of the crime charged in the Information. Rather, it was only to show the modus operandi of Rodriguez in reaching out to foreigners via Skype or Facebook and offering minors for sexual exploitation.” (People v. Eul Vincent O. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 263603, October 9, 2024).
The foreign client is right. We need to be more careful regarding our online dealings. Perhaps the simple rule is, when in doubt, log out.
(The author is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates (ETRIIILaw)– a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor, MCLE lecturer, bar reviewer and a book author. Among the books he authored is Law on Property and Essentials of Land Registration [2024 Edition] which was on the bestseller’s list in online shops for several months. His website is etriiilaw.com).
