CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II NOTES PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION

GAANAN VS IAC WON an extension telephone is among the prohibited devices in Section 1 of the Act? NO. An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices enumerated in Section 1 of RA No. 4 !! as the use thereof cannot be considered as "tapping" the #ire or cable of a telephone line. $he telephone extension in this case #as not installed for that purpose%. instruments the use of #hich #ould be tantamount to tapping the main line of a telephone. &t refers to instruments #hose installation or presence cannot be presumed by the party or parties being overheard because, by their very nature, they are not of common usage and their purpose is precisely for tapping, intercepting or recording a telephone conversation. 'urthermore, it is a general rule that penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the accused. $hus, in case of doubt as in the case at bar, on #hether or not an extension telephone is included in the phrase "device or arrangement", the penal statute must be construed as not including an extension telephone. ORTANEZ VS CA WON tape recordings are admissible as evidence? NO. . $hese tape recordings #ere made and obtained #hen private respondent allo#ed his friends from the military to #ire tap his home telephone. . Absent a clear sho#ing that both parties to the telephone conversations allo#ed the recording of the same, the inadmissibility of the sub(ect tapes is mandatory under Rep. Act No. 4 !!. $he sub(ect cassette tapes are inadmissible in evidence under )hilippine la#. RAMIREZ VS CA WON secretly taping a private conversation is punishable under RA 4 !!? $he aforestated provision clearly and une*uivocally ma+es it illegal for any person, not authori,ed by all the parties to any private communication to secretly record such communication by means of a tape recorder. $he la# ma+es no distinction as to #hether the party sought to be penali,ed by the statute ought to be a party other than or different from those involved in the private communication. Second, the nature of the conversation is immaterial to a violation of the statute. $he substance of the same need not be specifically alleged in the information. -hat R.A. 4 !! penali,es are the acts of secretly overhearing, intercepting or recording private communications by means of the devices enumerated therein. inally petitioner.s contention that the phrase "private communication" in Section 1 of R.A 4 !! does not include "private conversations" narro#s the ordinary meaning of the #ord "communication" to a point of absurdity. $hese definitions are broad enough to include verbal or non/verbal, #ritten or expressive communications of "meanings or thoughts" #hich are li+ely to include the emotionally 0 charged exchange, on 'ebruary , 1122, bet#een petitioner and private respondent, in the privacy of the latter.s office. ZULUETA VS CA WON the papers and documents ta"en #ithout the o#ner$s consent admissible as evidence? &ndeed the documents and papers in *uestion are inadmissible in evidence. $he constitutional in(unction declaring 3the privacy of communication and correspondence 4to be5 inviolable6 is no less applicable simply because it is the #ife 7#ho thin+s herself aggrieved by her husband8s infidelity9 #ho is the party against #hom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. $he only exception to the prohibition in the :onstitution is if there is a 3la#ful order 4from a5 court or #hen public safety or order re*uires other#ise, as prescribed by la#.6 Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible 3for any purpose in any proceeding.6 $he intimacies bet#een husband and #ife do not (ustify any one of them in brea+ing the dra#ers and cabinets of the other and in ransac+ing 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.

IN RE: LAURETA Respondents. reliance on the "privacy of communication" is misplaced. <etters addressed to individual =ustices, in connection #ith the performance of their (udicial functions become part of the (udicial record and are a matter of concern for the entire :ourt. $he contumacious character of those letters constrained the 'irst >ivision to refer the same to the :ourt en banc, en consulta and so that the :ourt en banc could pass upon the (udicial acts of the >ivision. &t #as only in the exercise of forbearance by the :ourt that it refrained from issuing immediately a sho# cause order in the expectancy that after having read the Resolution of the :ourt en banc of October 2, 112?, respondents #ould reali,e the un(ustness and unfairness of their accusations. WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN RE: ROXAS WON she may avail the #rit of habeas data? $he main problem behind the ruling of the :ourt of Appeals is that there is actually no evidence on record that sho#s that any of the public respondents had violated or threatened the right to privacy of the petitioner. $he act ascribed by the :ourt of Appeals to the public respondents that #ould have violated or threatened the right to privacy of the petitioner, i.e., +eeping records of investigations and other reports about the petitioner8s ties #ith the :))/N)A, #as not ade*uately proven0considering that the origin of such records #ere virtually unexplained and its existence, clearly, only inferred by the appellate court from the video and photograph released by Representatives )alparan and Alcover in their press conference. No evidence on record even sho#s that any of the public respondents had access to such video or photograph. &n vie# of the above considerations, the directive by the :ourt of Appeals en(oining the public respondents from "distributing or causing the distribution to the public any records in #hatever form, reports, documents or similar papers" relative to the petitioner8s "alleged ties #ith the :))/N)A," appears to be devoid of any legal basis. $he public respondents cannot be ordered to refrain from distributing something that, in the first place, it #as not proven to have. MERALCO VS LIM WON an employee invo"e the remedies available under such #rit #here an employer decides to transfer her #or"place on the basis of copies of an anonymous letter posted therein % imputing to her disloyalty to the company and calling for her to leave& #hich imputation it investigated but fails to inform her of the details thereof? $he habeas data rule, in general, is designed to protect by means of (udicial complaint the image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information of an individual. the #rits of amparo and habeas data #ill NO$ issue to protect purely property or commercial concerns nor #hen the grounds invo+ed in support of the petitions therefor are vague or doubtful. @mployment constitutes a property right under the context of the due process clause of the :onstitution. &t is evident that respondent8s reservations on the real reasons for her transfer / a legitimate concern respecting the terms and conditions of one8s employment / are #hat prompted her to adopt the extraordinary remedy of habeas data. =urisdiction over such concerns is inarguably lodged by la# #ith the N<R: and the <abor Arbiters. $here is no sho#ing from the facts presented that petitioners committed any un(ustifiable or unla#ful violation of respondent8s right to privacy vis/a/vis the right to life, liberty or security.