Dear PAO,
I recently discovered that some of my co-workers have been making derogatory and inappropriate comments about me in their group chat. One of my friends, who was a member of the group chat, sent me screenshots of their conversations. When I confronted them and mentioned my intention to file a case against them, they dismissed my threat, claiming that the screenshots would not be accepted in court because it was an invasion of their right to privacy. Will the screenshots be accepted in court? Did taking a screenshot of their conversation violate their right to privacy?
Claudine
Dear Claudine,
With the advent of modern technology, electronic and digital methods of communication, business transactions, and overall way of life have become increasingly prevalent. In response, our justice system has adapted to this new norm. AM 01-7-01-SC, dated July 17, 2001, or the Rules on Electronic Evidence, provides that electronic documents may be considered admissible as evidence. As defined under Section 1(h), Rule 2, electronic document refers to:
“(h) ‘Electronic document’ refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression, described or however represented, by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It includes digitally signed documents and any print-out or output, readable by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules, the term ‘electronic document’ may be used interchangeably with ‘electronic data message.'”
Applying this rule, screenshots from Facebook are considered electronic documents. On this score, an electronic document, when offered as evidence, may be admissible as evidence if it complies with the qualification set by the rules.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, ruled in the case of Cadajas v. People of the Philippines, GR 247348, Nov. 16, 2021, that the right to privacy can only be invoked against the government and not against those private individuals who obtained the evidence in their private capacity. Specifically:
“Under the 1987 Constitution, the right to privacy is expressly recognized under Article III, Sec. 3 thereof, which reads:
“SECTION 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
“(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
“While the above provision 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.”
To answer your question, the shared screenshots you have as evidence are considered electronic documents and may be admissible in court if they adhere to the rules of admissibility and are properly authenticated as prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws. Further, your friends’ right to privacy cannot be invoked in this case because the provision under the Bill of Rights can only be applied against government intrusions and not against private individuals. According to the above-mentioned ruling:
“In this case, the photographs and conversations in the Facebook Messenger account that were obtained and used as evidence against petitioner, which he considers as fruit of the poisonous tree, were not obtained through the efforts of the police officers or any agent of the State. Rather, these were obtained by a private individual. Indeed, the rule governing the admissibility of an evidence under Article III of the Constitution must affect only those pieces of evidence obtained by the State through its agents. It is these individuals who can flex government muscles and use government resources for a possible abuse. However, where private individuals are involved, for which their relationship is governed by the New Civil Code, the admissibility of an evidence cannot be determined by the provisions of the Bill of Rights.”
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]
