Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 70 views

    Cadajas Vs PPL

    Uploaded by

    clarkquinnvalorant1
    Christian Cadajas, 24, had a relationship with 14-year-old AAA after meeting on Facebook Messenger. AAA's mother BBB disapproved due to AAA's age. Later, BBB discovered messages where Cadajas was coercing AAA to send nude photos, which she did. Since Cadajas gave AAA his Facebook password, BBB was able to access their conversation and get copies of the photos. Cadajas claimed his privacy was violated, but the court ruled that since he voluntarily gave AAA access to his account, he limited his reasonable expectation of privacy regarding her. Therefore, the evidence obtained from his account did not violate his constitutional right to privacy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cadajas Vs PPL

    Uploaded by

    clarkquinnvalorant1
    70 views1 page
    Christian Cadajas, 24, had a relationship with 14-year-old AAA after meeting on Facebook Messenger. AAA's mother BBB disapproved due to AAA's age. Later, BBB discovered messages where Cadajas was coercing AAA to send nude photos, which she did. Since Cadajas gave AAA his Facebook password, BBB was able to access their conversation and get copies of the photos. Cadajas claimed his privacy was violated, but the court ruled that since he voluntarily gave AAA access to his account, he limited his reasonable expectation of privacy regarding her. Therefore, the evidence obtained from his account did not violate his constitutional right to privacy.

    Original Title

    Cadajas vs ppl

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Christian Cadajas, 24, had a relationship with 14-year-old AAA after meeting on Facebook Messenger. AAA's mother BBB disapproved due to AAA's age. Later, BBB discovered messages where Cadajas was coercing AAA to send nude photos, which she did. Since Cadajas gave AAA his Facebook password, BBB was able to access their conversation and get copies of the photos. Cadajas claimed his privacy was violated, but the court ruled that since he voluntarily gave AAA access to his account, he limited his reasonable expectation of privacy regarding her. Therefore, the evidence obtained from his account did not violate his constitutional right to privacy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    70 views1 page

    Cadajas Vs PPL

    Uploaded by

    clarkquinnvalorant1
    Christian Cadajas, 24, had a relationship with 14-year-old AAA after meeting on Facebook Messenger. AAA's mother BBB disapproved due to AAA's age. Later, BBB discovered messages where Cadajas was coercing AAA to send nude photos, which she did. Since Cadajas gave AAA his Facebook password, BBB was able to access their conversation and get copies of the photos. Cadajas claimed his privacy was violated, but the court ruled that since he voluntarily gave AAA access to his account, he limited his reasonable expectation of privacy regarding her. Therefore, the evidence obtained from his account did not violate his constitutional right to privacy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    DATA PRIVACY CASE

    CADAJAS VS. PEOPLE; G.R. No. 247348; 16 November 2021


    FACTS:
    Christian Cadajas (Cadajas) was twenty-four (24) years old when he met
    fourteen (14)-year-old AAA. After exchanging messages over Facebook
    Messenger, the two (2) eventually started a relationship which was later
    discovered by BBB, AAA's mother, when AAA forgot to log out of her
    Facebook account after accessing it through her mother's cellphone.
    Despite BBB's disapproval of their relationship, given that her daughter was still
    young, Cadajas and AAA continued to be together. Later. BBB was shocked
    when she read a conversation, wherein Cadajas was coaxing AAA to send him
    photos of her breasts and vagina. AAA relented and sent Cadajas the photos.
    Since Cadajas voluntarily 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 RTC acquitted petitioner of the charge for violation of Section 10 (a) of
    R.A. No. 7610, but found him 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.

    ISSUE : WON the prosecution's evidence violate Cadajas' right to privacy

    RULING:
    NO. Section 3, Article Ill of the 1987 Constitution highlights the importance of
    the right to privacy and its consequent effect on the rules on admissibility of
    evidence, However, one must not lose sight of the fact that the Bill of Rights
    was intended to protect relevance, materiality, authentication of documents, and
    the exclusionary rules under the Rules on Evidence.

    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.
    the act of AAA cannot be said to have violated petitioner's right to privacy.
    petitioner's expectation of privacy emanates from the fact that his Facebook
    Messenger account is password protected, such that no one can access the same
    except himself. Petitioner never asserted that his Facebook Messenger account
    was hacked or the photos were taken from his account through unauthorized
    means.
    Rather, the photos were obtained from his account because AAA, to whom he
    gave his password, had access to it. Considering that he voluntarily gave his
    password to AAA, he, in effect, has authorized AAA to access the same. He did
    not even take steps to exclude AAA from gaining access to his account. 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.

    You might also like