The Supreme Court reiterated that using online chat logs and videos as evidence does not violate the right to privacy if they are used to determine if a crime has been committed.
In a Decision written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the Supreme Court’s Second Division ruled that Eul Vincent O. Rodriguez (Rodriguez) engaged in human trafficking using Facebook and other online platforms. He was convicted of qualified trafficking in persons under Republic Act No. (RA) 9208 or the Anti-Trafficking of Persons Act of 2003.
In 2013, the Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force of Region 7 (Task Force) began investigating Rodriguez after receiving a tip from the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Police Officer 3 Jerry Gambi (PO3 Gambi) used a decoy account to communicate with Rodriguez across various online platforms, recording their correspondence.
In their initial interactions online, Rodriguez offered PO3 Gambi nude shows in exchange for money, including one involving Rodriguez’s minor cousins. Once the show started and was recorded, PO3 Gambi stopped the show. They then set up an entrapment operation where PO3 Gambi told Rodriguez that a foreigner friend was staying at a certain hotel. Rodriguez offered to have 14-year-old AAA meet them at the hotel to do a live nude show.
During the entrapment operation, Rodriguez accepted marked money from the foreigner posing as “Kyle Edwards,” who was actually an undercover confidential informant of the Task Force. Upon Rodriguez’s acceptance of the payment, he was arrested and charged.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Rodriguez, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
In upholding Rodriguez’s conviction, the Supreme Court found that the videos and recordings of the chat logs of Rodriguez’s conversations with PO3 Gambi can be admitted as evidence.
The Court rejected Rodriguez’s arguments that they were inadmissible for violating his privacy rights. RA No. 10173, or the Data Privacy Act of 2012, allows the processing of sensitive personal information to determine a person’s criminal liability and to protect the rights and interests of persons in court proceedings.
As the chat logs and videos presented by Rodriguez were submitted as evidence to assess his criminal liability for qualified trafficking, his right to privacy was not violated.
The Court emphasized that the videos and chat logs were presented as evidence to show Rodriguez’s method of reaching out to foreigners through Skype or Facebook and offering minors for sexual exploitation.
Rodriguez was sentenced to life imprisonment and fined P2 million. He was also ordered to pay P600,000 in damages, with legal interest of 6% per annum from the finality of judgment, until full payment.SC PIO
