Electronic Evidence: recorded chat logs and videos

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EUL VINCENT O. RODRIGUEZ,

M. LOPEZ, J.:

DOCTRINE:
Moreover, 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.

FACTS:
​ Rodriguez was charged with qualified trafficking. Upon arraignment, Rodriguez pleaded not
guilty. During pre-trial, the parties stipulated: (1) on the fact of arrest; (2) that the first time the police saw
Rodriguez was during his arrest; and (3) that prior to the entrapment, the procurer and the decoy
communicated online. Thereafter, trial ensued.

​ The prosecution established that the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (US
ICE) informed PSI Macatangay, Chief of the Regional Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force of Region 7,
regarding the activities of Rodriguez. PSI Macatangay learned that a certain “Eula Rodriguez,” who was
later confirmed to be Rodriguez, was engaged in human trafficking through the use of Facebook and other
media communications. The US ICE gave PSI Macatangay a printout of the Skype Account of “Eula
Rodriguez.” Thus, PSI Macatangay assigned PO3 Gambi to investigate and validate the information
received from the US ICE.

​ In compliance, PO3 Gambi created a decoy Facebook account and messaged “hi” to Rodriguez’s
account. Rodriguez eventually accepted PO3 Gambi’s friend request on Facebook and they started
communicating. In the course of their conversations, Rodriguez asked PO3 Gambi to chat with the
account “sofia.negra” on Skype. In Skype, Rodriguez asked for monetary help and offered a nude show
involving three girls in exchange. Thus, PO3 Gambi informed Rodriguez that he was a businessman
residing in Guam, but he could send the money to Rodrigruez through a friend in Zamboanga City. Upon
payment, Rodriguez refused to present the nude show. After their correspondence, PO3 Gambi saved and
printed their chat logs.

​ Thereafter, Rodriguez again contacted PO3 Gambi through a Skype video call, this time using the
name “Windolyn Cedeno” through the account “cassandra.labajo.” PO3 Gambi recognized that it was
Rodriguez because the Skype account used the same pictures as the previous account, “sofia.negra”.
Moreover, he was able to see Rodriguez’s face during their Skype video call while he refused to show his
face, reasoning that there was something wrong with his camera.
​ Then, Rodriguez again offered a nude show for USD 50. Hence, PO3 Gambi asked his
confidential decoy in the United States to send money according to Rodriguez’s instructions. However,
when Rodriguez received the money, he again refused to follow through with the nude show since he was
at an internet cafe. Instead, he showed the faces of two young girls, ages 16 and 17 years old. PO3 Gambi
took a video recording of their interaction and stored it in a USB. He also printed their chat logs.

​ Then, Rodriguez reached out to PO3 Gambi and informed him that he was ready to present a
nude show. He then presented the two minors and ordered them to remove their upper garments and lick
each other. At that point, PO3 Gambi stopped the show to prevent further damage to the victims. The
entire online interaction was again recorded by PO3 Gambi.

​ PO3 Gambi prepared an entrapment operation against Rodriguez. He told Rodriguez, via Skype,
that he had a foreign friend, Kyle Edwards, who was staying at the Waterfront Hotel. Rodriguez offered to
meet with Kyle Edwards and bring “Tosip” to do a nude show in person. On the same day, the team
proceeded to the Waterfront Hotel, where Rodriguez was arrested by SPO1 Timagos. They recovered the
marked money, a bag, a camera, a sex toy, a cellphone, simcards, and various money transfer receipts. On
the other hand, “Tosip” was turned over to the care of DSWD.

​ During trial, Rodriguez argued that his right to due process was violated when the chat logs and
videos of his conversation with PO3 Gambi were presented, as these were not related to the incident
alleged in the Information filed against him. Moreover, he posited that these pieces of evidence were an
intrusion of his constitutional right to privacy of communication and in violation of Anti-Wire Tapping
Law.

​ The RTC found Rodriguez guilty of qualified trafficking. Rodriguez filed his appeal before the
CA. The appellate court affirmed Rodriguez’s conviction. Hence, this appeal.

​ Rodriguez raised that the trial court erred in relying on the chat logs as these are “extraneous
evidence” and a violation of his constitutional right to privacy.

ISSUE:
​ Whether the chat logs and videos admissible in evidence, hence, do not violate the
accused-appellant’s right to privacy.

RULING:
​ Yes, the chat logs and videos are admissible as evidence and do not violate Rodriguez’s right to
privacy.

​ 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. Furthermore, in the case of Cadajas v. People
the Court held that the DPA allows the processing of data and sensitive personal information where 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.
​ The communications, photos, and videos sought to be excluded by Rodriguez were submitted in
evidence to prosecute him for violation of qualified trafficking and to establish “Tosip’s” legal claims.
Thus, there is no violation of the right to privacy.

​ Neither can Rodriguez rely on Republic Act No. 4200, or the Anti-Wire Tapping Law. In Ganaan
v. IAC, the Court clarified that the prohibition therein only applies to instruments used for tapping the
main line of a telephone.

​ By no stretch of the imagination can the recording of Skype conversations and pictures be of the
same nature as “tapping the main line of a telephone.” Thus, the trial court properly admitted and
appreciated these pieces of evidence.

​ Moreover, 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.

​ ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DISMISSED.