SECTION 3 Privacy Of Communication and CorrespondencePhilippines Constitution CASE DOCTRINES (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 and the preceding section shall be inadmissible for anypurpose in any proceeding. What type of communication & correspondence does the provision cover? 1935 Consti Convention – “letters & messages” carried by agencies of gov’t Coorected: “used in general sense” Olmstead doctrine – when there is no actual trespass, there is no search, & where the object is not tangible, it cannot be seized. Tangibles – house, papers, persons & effects.. Katz v US overruled Olmstead – includes wire-tapping, with or without trespass under the ban of search & seizure clause
agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. The constitutional against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by a private individual. B. Waiver of Rights Veroy v. Layague – search of rebels in a house – Permission was granted by Veroy to enter the house but only to ascertain the presence of rebel soldiers. Where permission to enter a residence was given, it is illegal to search the rooms therein and seize firearms without as search warrant. Okabe v. Gutierrez – estafa case – An application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant issued therefore.. An application for bail SHALL NOT BE considered as a waiver of rights. A valid waiver, requisites. 1) rights must exist; 2) there must be clear and convincing proof that there was an actual intention to relinquish the right C. Anti-Wire Tapping Act Navarro v. CA – police complaint gone bad – where the exchange between two persons is not private, the tape recording is not prohibited Salcedo-Ordonez v. CA – annulment with damages – husband is cheating on me case – Unauthorized tape recordings of telephone conversations not admissible D. Privacy of Bank Accounts
What are the conditions for allowable intrusion into the privacy of communication & correspondence? **The guarantee given by the privacy provision is not absolute Intent of Laurel is to condition allowable intrusion upon an order of a court “person entitled to his secrets but if it involves public questions w/c State ought to know may infringe that privacy (process or appeal to Court) 1) 2) Lawful order Public safety & order so demands
Marquez v. Desierto – secrecy of bank deposits – exceptions: 1) depositor consents in writing; 2) subject of an impeachment case; 3) by court order in cases of bribery and dereliction by public officials, 4) deposit is subject of litigation; 5) unexplained wealth E. Privacy of Communication Roxas v. Zuzuaregui – contempt of the Supreme Court – the letter ceased to be private when Roxas furnished the letter to the all the justices and not just to the one whom it is addressed The right of privacy of communication and correspondence is a right embodied in the Constitution. During illegal search, documents taken from you cannot be used against you and it is inadmissible in any courts in any proceedings.
**text not give any ground to allow intrusion but there must be probable cause & that privacy right is but an aspect of the right to be secure in one’s person.. ** identity of person & offense & the period of authorization given can be specified When in intrusion is made without judicial order? Public order & public safety through non-judicial gov’t official Ex: Exec. Officer can order intrusion when in his judgment, even w/o prior court approval he believes that PS & PO so requires. PO & PS – security of human lives, liberty & property against the activities of invaders, insurrectionists & rebels. A. Exclusionary Rule (Second paragraph of Section 3) People v. Marti – package bound for Switzerland – The Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against act of private individuals. It is directed against the government and its
With regards to written documents recovered by the relatives after the death of the patient (just a list of heartaches against the company he was previously connected, might be the caused of his sudden death), is not included or one of the exceptions. The right of privacy of communication and correspondence cannot be invoked by the company if such documents are vehemently manufactured. The company has no cause of action. Much more if the deceased wrote it a minute ago before he suffered cardiac arrest.
dictagraph or the other devices enumerated in Section 1 of RA 4200 . Laconico. a case which dealt with the issue of telephone wiretapping. cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone. Appellant Laconico executed on the following day an affidavit stating that he heard complainant demand P8. 4200 because a telephone extension devise was neither among those "device(s) or arrangement(s)" 19 enumerated therein. It refers to instruments whose installation or presence cannot be presumed by the party or parties being overheard because. An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone. went on a business trip.000 from him. Gaanan through a telephone extension as requested by Laconico so as to personally hear the proposed conditions for the settlement. that is. or other devices enumerated in Sec. or recording a tel. IAC. ISSUE: W/N an extension telephone is among the prohibited devices in Sec. That same morning. 145 SCRA 112 (1986) F: Complainant Atty. the phrase "device or arrangement" in Section 1 of RA 4200.
. intercepting. This section refers to instruments whose installation or presence cannot be presumed by the party or parties being overheard because. Pintor was subsequently . by their very nature. persons such as government authorities or representatives of organized groups from installing devices in order to gather evidence for use in court or to intimidate. or record the spoken words. we held that the use of a telephone extension for the purpose of overhearing a private conversation without authorization did not violate R. but the whole and every part thereof must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts. arrested by agents of the Philippine Constabulary. 1 of RA 4200 such that its use to overhear a private conversation would constitute an unlawful interception of communication between 2 parties using a telephone line.A.00 for the withdrawal of the case for direct assault. should be construed to comprehend instruments of the same or similar nature. through punishment. An extension tel. the particular clauses and phrases of the statute should not be taken as detached and isolated expressions. they are not of common usage and their purpose is precisely for tapping. Gaanan listened to the telephone conversation without complainant's consent. Atty. by their very nature. RULING: NO.Wiretapping Act (RA 4200). In an entrapment operation Atty. Leon Gonzaga. and the statute itself explicitly mentions the unauthorized "recording" of private communications with the use of tape-recorders as among the acts punishable. Intermediate Appellate Court. Hence. Complainant then told Laconico to wait for instructions on where to deliver the money. they are not of common usage and their purpose is precisely for tapping. another lawyer. In Gaanan vs. telephoned the appellant to come to his office and advise him on the settlement of the direct assault case because his regular lawyer.arrested in upon receipt of the money. intercept. Pintor and Montebon offered to withdraw the complaint for direct assault they filed against Laconico after demanding P8. in order to be punishable must strictly be with the use of the enumerated devices in RA No. complainant charged Gaanan and Laconico with violation of the Anti. intercepting or recording a telephone conversation. because the applicable facts and circumstances pointing to a violation of R. the mere act of listening. 4200 or others of similar nature. This demand was heard by Atty. blackmail or gain some unwarranted advantage over the telephone users. We are of the view that an extension telephone is not among such devices or arrangements What the law refers to is a "tap" of a wire or cable or the use of a "device or arrangement" for the purpose of secretly overhearing.Gaanan v. Complainant then charged Laconico with violation of RA 4200 for listening to the telephone conversation without complainant's consent.A. Consequently. dictagraph.
Our lawmakers intended to discourage. or recording the communication. Since Atty. following the principle that "penal statutes must be construed 20 strictly in favor of the accused. instruments the use of which would be tantamount to tapping the main line of a telephone. There must be either a physical interruption through a wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to overhear. 4200 suffer from no ambiguity. he told Laconico to give the money to his wife but the latter insisted that complainant himself should receive the money. In statutory construction. intercepting. 1 of the law as the use thereof cannot be considered as "tapping" the wire or cable of a telephone line. in order to determine the true intent of the legislature." The instant case turns on a different note.000.
4200. She contends that the provision merely refers to the unauthorized taping of a private conversation by a party other than those involved in the 8 communication. 1988 is quoted Upon arraignment. 4200 penalizes are the acts of secretly overhearing. respondent Court of Appeals promulgated its assailed Decision declaring the trial court's order of May 3.A. supports the respondent court's conclusion that in enacting R.A. intercepting or recording private
." As a result of petitioner's recording of the event and alleging that the said act of secretly taping the confrontation was illegal.A.RAMIREZ V CA A civil case damages was filed by petitioner Socorro D. What R. 4200 penalizes the taping of a "private communication." An information charging petitioner of violation of the said Act. 4200 our lawmakers indeed contemplated to make illegal. intercept. or however otherwise described. moreover. the instant petition. 4200 refers to a the taping of a communication by a 4 personother than a participant to the communication. Consequently. "even a (person) privy to a communication who records his private conversation with another without the 13 knowledge of the latter (will) qualify as a violator" under this provision of R.A.A. 1990. not authorized by all the parties to any private communication to secretly record such communication by means of a tape recorder. and holding that: [T]he allegations sufficiently constitute an offense punishable under Section 1 of R.A. or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder. taken together with the abovequoted deliberations from the Congressional Record. which forthwith referred the case to the Court of Appeals in a Resolution (by the First Division) of June 19. 1989. on February 21. as respondent Court of Appeals correctly concluded.A. the respondent judge acted in grave abuse of discretion correctible 5 by certiorari. dated October 6. and that 2) the violation punished by R. her act of secretly taping her conversation with private respondent was not illegal under the said 10 act. It shall be unlawfull for any person. as her "main and principal issue" that the applicable provision of Republic Act 4200 does not apply to the taping of a private conversation by one of the parties to the conversation. The law makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a party other than or different from those involved in the private communication. Consequently. in lieu of a plea. 4200. A perusal of the Senate Congressional Records. and interpretation would be resorted to only where a literal interpretation would be 11 12 either impossible or absurb or would lead to an injustice. 1990.A. Hence. We disagree. The substance of the same need not be specifically alleged in the information. Where the law makes no distinctions. Second. unauthorized tape recording of private conversations or communications taken either by the parties themselves or by third persons. 4200 entitled. Section 1 of R. or by using any other device or arrangement. 4200. 1989 null and void. In relation to this. 1989. otherwise the facts charged would not
constitute a violation of R. Garcia. In thus quashing the information based on the ground that the facts alleged do not constitute an offense. First. allegedly vexed. Finally. petitioner agues that R." not a "private conversation" and that consequently. Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous. agreeing with petitioner that 1) the facts charged do not constitute an offense under R. petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. Ester S. entitled "An Act to prohibit and penalize wire tapping and other related violations of private communication. the nature of the conversations is immaterial to a violation of the statute. to tap any wire or cable. therefore plainly supports the view held by the respondent court that the provision seeks to penalize even those privy to the private communications. insulted and humiliated her in a "hostile and furious mood" and in a manner offensive to petitioner's dignity and personality. legislative intent is determined principally from the language of a statute. one does not distinguish.A. The statute's intent to penalize all persons unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the use of the qualifier "any". 1990. Petitioner vigorously argues. petitioner avers that the substance or content of the conversation must be alleged in the Information. 4200. to secretly overhear. 1." provides: Sec. particularly a violation of R. The unambiguity of the express words of the provision." contrary to morals. petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which 6 respondent Court of Appeals denied in its Resolution dated June 19. On February 9. The aforestated provision clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any person. Ramirez in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City alleging that the private respondent. good 1 customs and public policy. the private respondent filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with this Court. In an order May 3. and other purposes. the law is applied according to its express terms. From the trial court's Order. in a confrontation in the latter's office. not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word. 4200. " An Act to Prohibit and Penalized Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations of Private Communication and Other Purposes. the trial court granted the Motion to Quash.A. private respondent filed a criminal case before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City for violation of Republic Act 4200.
Facts: Early morning of 27 July 2003. an upscale apartment complex. led by the now detained junior officers. The soldiers then returned to their barracks. the nature of the conversation. a mere allegation of a violation of one’s constitutional right is not sufficient. Around 7:00 p. or signifies the "process by which meanings or thoughts are shared between individuals through a common system of 16 symbols (as language signs or gestures)" These definitions are broad enough to include verbal or non-verbal. CA dismissed the petition stating tape recordings are not inadmissible per se. on grounds of lack of marriage license and/or psychological incapacity of the petitioner." Finally. entered and took control of the Oakwood Premier Luxury Apartments (“Oakwood”). J. depending on how they are presented and offered and on how the trial judge utilizes them in the interest of truth and fairness and the even handed administration of justice. written or expressive communications of "meanings or thoughts" which are likely to include the emotionally-charged exchange. Gen. the soldiers voluntarily surrendered to the authorities after several negotiations with government emissaries. as 14 well as its communication to a third person should be professed. communication 15 connotes the act of sharing or imparting. The junior officers publicly renounced their support for the administration and called for the resignation of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and several cabinet members. between petitioner and private respondent. as in a conversation. as the Chief of Staff of the AFP. C. the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory under Rep. Clearly. Ortanez filed City a complaint for annulment of marriage with damages against petitioner Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez.m. of the same date. located in the business district of Makati City. HELD: No. Any doubts about the legislative body's meaning of the phrase "private communication" are. petitioner's contention that the phrase "private communication" in Section 1 of R. 1988. Abaya.
ISSUE: W/N Tape recordings are admissible as evidence. 4200 entitled "An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations of the Privacy of Communication." In its ordinary signification. The violation of constitutional right must be sufficient to void the entire proceedings. in the privacy of the latter's office. issued a directive to all the Major Service Commanders to turn over custody of ten junior officers to the ISAFP
. meaning "to share or to impart. 4200. and for other purposes" expressly makes such tape recordings inadmissible in evidence. As the Solicitor General pointed out in his COMMENT before the respondent court: "Nowhere (in the said law) is it required that before one can be regarded as a violator. Anti-Wire Tapping Act
Salcedo-Ortanez v. put to rest by the fact that the terms "conversation" and "communication" were interchangeably used by Senator Tañada in his Explanatory Note to the bill. Among the exhibits offered by private respondent were three (3) cassette tapes of alleged telephone conversations between petitioner and unidentified persons. Act No. respondents trial court and Court of Appeals failed to consider the aforequoted provisions of the law in admitting in evidence the cassette tapes in question.A. Act No.A. Absent a clear showing that both parties to the telephone conversations allowed the recording of the same. CA – annulment with damages – husband is cheating on me case – Unauthorized tape recordings of telephone conversations not admissible
SALCEDO-ORTANEZ V CA GR NO 110662 FACTS: Respondent Rafael S. communication connotes the act of sharing or imparting signification. on February 22. The soldiers later defused the explosive devices they had earlier planted. some 321 armed soldiers.
In re: Alejano v. The soldiers disarmed the security officers of Oakwood and planted explosive devices in its immediate surroundings. On 31 July 2003. They and any other variant thereof can be admitted in evidence for certain purposes. 4200 does not include "private conversations" narrows the ordinary meaning of the word "communication" to a point of absurdity. 4200. Rep.communications by means of the devices enumerated therein. Cabuay 468 SCRA 188 August 25. furthermore. The word communicate comes from the latin word communicare. 2005 En Banc: Carpio. The mere allegation that an individual made a secret recording of a private communication by means of a tape recorder would suffice to constitute an offense under Section 1 of R.
McDonnell. Dunn. If the letters are marked confidential communication between the detainees and their lawyers.S. The Court of appeals dismissed the petition. government prosecutors filed an Information for coup d’etat with the Regional Trial Court of Makati City.S. Palmer.Detention Center On 1 August 2003. Cabuay. While incoming mail may be inspected for contraband and read in certain instances. the officials of the ISAFP Detention Center could read the letters. On 2 August 2003. The case of Palmigiano v. 0263-04. the legality of which the detainees and petitioners do not even question. Dunn declared that if complete censorship is permissible. SG Antonio Trillanes IV and Capt. The right to privacy of those detained is subject to Section 4 of RA 7438. which the trial court granted. Gerardo Gambala to the Commanding Officers of ISAFP. as well as to the limitations inherent in lawful detention or imprisonment. involving convicted prisoners. pre-trial detainees and convicted prisoners have a diminished expectation of privacy rights. to accommodate a myriad of “institutional needs and objectives” of prison facilities. Supreme Court explained that prisoners necessarily lose many protections of the Constitution. to uphold faithfully the rights of the detainees in accordance with Standing Operations Procedure No. However. Abaya issued a directive to all Major Service Commanders to take into custody the military personnel under their command who took part in the Oakwood incident except the detained junior officers who were to remain under the custody of ISAFP. In the present case. who was in charge of implementing the regulations in the ISAFP Detention Center. State v. the detention officials should not read the letters but only open the envelopes for inspection in the presence of the detainees. On the same date. since the letters were not confidential communication between the detainees and their lawyers. On August 11. which is the proper subject of habeas corpus proceedings. the CA ordered Gen. the appellate court held that the constitutional rights alleged to have been violated in this case do not directly affect the detainees’ liberty. as a practical matter. which required respondents to make a return of the writ and to appear and produce the persons of the detainees before the CA. The Supreme Court issued a resolution. Issue: Whether or not the detainees have the regulations imposed in the ISAFP Detention Center is a violation of the right to privacy of the detainees Held: American jurisprudence initially made a distinction between the privacy rights enjoyed by convicted inmates and pre-trial detainees. The letters alleged to have been read by the ISAFP authorities were not confidential letters between the detainees and their lawyers. Supreme Court ruled that an inmate has no reasonable expectation of privacy inside his cell. the detainees and their other co-accused filed with the Regional Trial Court of Makati City a Motion for Preliminary Investigation. The Court of Appeals recognized that habeas corpus may also be the appropriate remedy to assail the legality of detention if there is a deprivation of a constitutional right. chief among which is internal security. The appellate court declared that while the opening and reading of Trillanes’ letter is an abhorrent violation of his right to privacy of communication. the U. By the very fact of their detention. Habeas corpus is unavailing in this case as the detainees’ confinement is under a valid indictment. Gen. Travisono recognized
that pre-trial detainees. Palmer. The U. citing Hudson v. 2003. In Hudson v. Branch 61. However. this does not justify the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. prison officials could not read such mail from attorneys. the U. The curtailment of certain rights is necessary.
. State v. The appellate court pointed out that the detainees are already charged of coup d’etat before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. outgoing mail of pre-trial detainees could not be inspected or read at all. against the soldiers involved in the 27 July 2003 Oakwood incident.S. Travisono and made no distinction as to the detainees’ limited right to privacy. abandoned Palmigiano v. The petitioner who received the letters from detainees Trillanes and Maestrecampo was merely acting as the detainees’ personal courier and not as their counsel when he received the letters for mailing. petitioners filed a petition for habeas corpus with SC. In the subsequent case of Wolff v. The appellate court ruled that the regulation of the detainees’ right to confer with their counsels is reasonable under the circumstances. Dunn noted the considerable jurisprudence in the United States holding that inmate mail may be censored for the furtherance of a substantial government interest such as security or discipline. then the lesser act of opening the mail and reading it is also permissible. The later case of State v. The violation does not amount to illegal restraint. courts and counsel was held impermissible. Nonetheless. enjoy a limited right of privacy in communication. Censorship of pre-trial detainees’ mail addressed to public officials. unlike convicted prisoners. The trial court later issued the Commitment Orders giving custody of junior officers Lt. Supreme Court held that prison officials could open in the presence of the inmates incoming mail from attorneys to inmates. That a law is required before an executive officer could intrude on a citizen’s privacy rights] is a guarantee that is available only to the public at large but not to persons who are detained or imprisoned.
and a fourth letter. for totally disregarding the facts and circumstances and legal considerations set forth in the Supreme Court’s Resolutions of the First Division and en banc. dated 22 October 1986 addressed to Justice Florentino P. conduct. in a stance of dangling threats to effect a change of the Court’s adverse resolution (in GR 68635: Eva Maravilla Ilustre vs. and for hiding therefrom in anonymity behind his client’s name.In RE: Laureta Facts: In almost identical letters dated 20 October 1986. Feliciano. and who would readily accept anything but the soundness of the judgments of the Courts concerned. The fact that said letters are not technically considered pleadings. Eva Maravilla Ilustre/Atty.” True to her threats. en consulta and so that the Court en banc could pass upon the judicial acts of the Division. without any copy furnished the Supreme Court nor the members who were charged. why she should not be held in contempt for her statements. On 26 December 1986. all with the manifest intent to bring the Justices of this Court and of the Court of Appeals into disrepute and to subvert public confidence in the Courts. personally sent to Justices Andres R. after having lost her case before the Supreme Court. 8 JUSTICES FACE GRAFT CHARGES” thereby making it unjustly appear that the Justices of the Supreme Court and the other respondents were charged with “graft and corruption” when the Complaint was actually filed by a disgruntled litigant and her counsel after having lost her case thrice in the Supreme Court. acts and charges against the Supreme Court and/or official actions of the Justices concerned. an unjust. Narvasa. acts and charges against the Supreme Court and/or the official actions of the Justices concerned and her ascription of improper motives to them. as the Tribunal of last resort. Ordoñez and Justice Pedro Yap of the Supreme Court with having used their power and influence in persuading and inducing the members of the First Division of the Court into promulgating their “unjust extended Minute Resolution of 14 May 1986. The constitutional right of freedom of speech or right to privacy cannot be used as a shield for contemptuous acts against the Court. as an officer of the Court. charging some Members of the Supreme Court with having knowingly and deliberately rendered. it required (1) Eva Maravilla Ilustre to show cause. not covered by the constitutional guarantee. Laureta has committed acts unbecoming an officer of the Court for his stance of dangling threats of bringing the matter to the “proper forum” to effect a change of the Court’s adverse Resolution. and charging Solicitor General Sedfrey A. We intend to hold responsible members of the First Division who participated in the promulgation of these three minute-resolutions in question. In the Resolution of the Supreme Court en banc. transcend the permissible bounds of propriety and undermine and degrade the administration of justice. Wenceslao Laureta. Wenceslao Laureta wrote in part that “we are pursuing further remedies in our quest for justice under the law. nor the fact that they were submitted after the main petition had been finally resolved does not detract from the gravity of the contempt committed. Atty. which was widely publicized in almost all dailies on 23 December 1986. Also. charging some Justices of the Court of Appeals with knowingly rendering their “unjust resolution” of 20 January 1984 “through manifest and evident bad faith”. The contumacious character of those letters constrained the First Division to refer the same to the Court en banc. Ilustre. or at the very least. and in her unjustified outburst that she can no longer expect justice from the Supreme Court. and (2) Atty. is a tirade from a disgruntled litigant and a defeated counsel in a case that has been brought thrice before the Supreme Court. to show cause. none of the division members are above the law. dated 20 January 1986. Maravilla-Ilustre and Laureta would realize the unjustness and unfairness of their accusations. which statements. for authoring. why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for the statements. the two highest Courts of the land by challenging in bad faith their integrity and claiming that they knowingly rendered unjust judgments. in essence. It was only in the exercise of forbearance by the Court that it refrained from issuing immediately a show cause order in the expectancy that after having read the Resolution of the Court en banc of 28 October 1986. conduct. for his lack of respect for and exposing to public ridicule. acts and malicious charges of his client.” Atty. Laureta reportedly circulated copies of the Complaint to the press. which we find disputed by the facts and circumstances of record as above stated. within 10 days from notice. conduct. in an alleged quest for justice but with the manifest intent to bring the Justices into disrepute and to subvert public confidence in the Courts and the orderly administration of justice. like others. all members of the First Division of the Supreme Court. the Tanodbayan (Ombudsman) dismissed Maravilla-Ilustre’s Complaint.
Issue: Whether the letters addressed to the Supreme Court justices are matters shielded bythe constitutional right of freedom of speech or right to privacy. in the language of the charges she filed before the Tanodbayan.
. for making it appear that the Justices of the Supreme Court and other respondents before the Tanodbayan are charged with “graft and corruption” when the complaint before the Tanodbayan. even in the performance of official functions. Ameurfina M. in connection with the performance of their judicial functions become part of the judicial record and are a matter of concern for the entire Court and thus. in her statements. with bad faith. Held: Letters addressed to individual Justices. assisting and/or abetting and/or not preventing the contemptuous statements. extended Minute Resolution “making” her opponents the “illegal owners” of vast estates. notwithstanding his disclaimer that he had absolutely nothing to do with them. within 10 days from notice. and Isagani A. Herrera. conduct. For the members thereof cannot claim immunity when their action runs afoul with penal sanctions. IAC being dismissed). Ilustre has transcended the permissible bounds of fair comment and criticism to the detriment of the orderly administration of justice in her letters addressed to the individual Justices. acts and charges against the Supreme Court and the official actions of the Justices concerned. Maravilla-Ilustre filed on 16 December 1986 an Affidavit-Complaint before the Tanodbayan. unless satisfactorily explained. Cruz. The issue of the Daily Express of 23 December 1986 published a banner headline reading: “ORDONEZ.
but without Carancio. forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet in her husband's clinic and took 157 documents consisting of private correspondence between Dr. Together. On 2 July 1981. that said group had ordered the “arrest” of Carancio which sentenced the latter to die by stabbing. 1996
Petitioner: Cecilia Zulueta Respondents: Court of Appeals and Alfredo Martin Ponente: J. When Sisneros got near the two. It was produced by the recipient of the letter who identified the same. No. to witness Rodrigo Esma several days before the latter testified on 20 October 1982. petitioner entered the clinic of her husband. who produced and identified the same in the course of his testimony in Court. The two were able to overtake the forester.
Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private respondent Alfredo Martin. Held: Section 4. On March 26. Besides. Melencio-Herrera (J): 13 concur Facts: Sometime in June or July 1980. February 20. Davao del Sur. alias Jun. Carancio was taken to the house of Lawi-an where several persons were already gathered. Albofera. and in the presence of her mother. Managa. Sisneros asked that his identity be kept secret in the meantime pending the arrest of Albofera and Lawi-an. shortly after their arrest.” Whereupon. Albofera and Esma proceeded at once to the house of Lawi-an. at the lower portion of the road. found the circumstantial evidence sufficient to warrant conviction beyond reasonable doubt of both Albofera and Lawi-an for murder. Martin's passport. a certain alias Jun. Article III of the 1987 Constitution) implements another Constitutional provision on the security of a citizen against unreasonable search and seizure. Carancio replied that he was there to inspect the “caingin” as a forester. Lawi-an told him that the forester was already killed and warned him not to reveal this matter to anybody otherwise he would be killed. Also in July. a driver and private respondent's secretary. Besides. and Joel Maldan. However. and photographs. Boy Lawi-an.. In the course of the trial. nothing Albofera stated in his letter is being taken against him in arriving at a determination of his culpability. 1982. Albofera executed an extra-judicial confession before the Municipal Circuit Judge. Albofera asked Esma to join him in going after the forester. *** A letter written by the accused to a witness which was produced by the witness during the trial is admissible in evidence. (NACHURA) ZULUETA VS. and ordered them to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P35. the mandatory review. Albofera warned everyone. cancelled checks. in Criminal Case 184. Davao del Sur. The police authorities arrested Albofera on 2 July 1981. After trial. Sisneros finally reported the killing of that forester to his brother Margarito. 107383. a CHDF member in Bansalan. 1981. affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch X) which ordered petitioner to return documents and papers taken by her from private respondent's clinic without the latter's knowledge and consent. as well as alias Jun’s hands were bloodied. Romeo Lawi-an was subsequently arrested on 4 July 1981. Branch XVIII. led the police authorities to the place in Bagong Silang where they buried the slain forester. in June 1981. Bansalan. Mendoza
Facts: This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. Martin and his alleged paramours. where the authorities dug and recovered the cadaver. Boy Lawi-an.m. particularly Esma. Albofera admitted having sent the letter and it was its recipient. the two.00 “by way of moral as well as actual damages” in its Decision of 5 October 1984. Dr. stating therein that he was forced to join the NPA movement for fear of his life. Albofera’s hands. Esma did not join the group but remained in the house of Lawi-an. COURT OF APPEALS G. The production of that letter by
the prosecution was not the result of an unlawful search and seizure nor was it through unwarranted intrusion or invasion into Albofera’s privacy. there is nothing really self-incriminatory in the letter. the the Regional Trial Court. 20 July 1987] En Banc. there is nothing selfincriminatory in the letter.000. Romeo Lawi-an. at about 9:00 a. The threat to his life caused Sisneros to be cautious in not reporting at once the matter to the authorities. and Joel Maldan decided to bring Carancio to the forest some 200 meters away from Lawi-an’s house. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution (substantially reproduced in Section 3. when Alexander Albofera called him and informed him they would run after somebody. at about 4:30 p. diaries. Hence. it was not the result of an unlawful search. among whom were Lawi-an.. The following day. After washing their hands. Once inside and seated. Issue: Whether the Albofera’s letter to Esma should be excluded as evidence in light of alleged unwarranted intrusion or invasion of the accused’s privacy. Albofera [GR L-69377. The documents and papers were seized for use in
.m. a doctor of medicine.R.People vs. near the place of Romeo Lawi-an. nor through an unwarranted intrusion or invasion into the privacy of the accused. against revealing or saying anything to any person or the military. the prosecution presented a letter written in the Visayan dialect by Alexander Albofera. Furthermore. Rodrigo Esma himself. sentenced them to death. Esma acceded. a certain Teodoro Carancio. Albofera mainly pleaded that Esma change his declaration in his Affidavit and testify in his (Albofera’s) favor. Albofera began questioning Carancio about his purpose in the place. There Lawi-an told Albofera that the forester was around making a list of people engaged in “caingin. while under detention. Rodrigo Esma was tending his onion farm located in Upper Bagong Silang. Not long after the group returned to Lawi-an’s house. greetings cards. Efren Sisneros was at his farm when Lawi-an and Jun Menez passed by and called him. Digos. specifically in a hilly portion near the forest where the trees were not quite big besides a coffee plantation.
and illegal suspension. On 31 July 1989. (NACHURA)
. as it sprang from an earlier incident between her and Co's secretary. Forthwith. In a letter to Co dated 10 February 1990. As regards the first memorandum."
The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. she was informed that effective 6 February 1990 to 7 March 1990." She also averred that the preventive suspension was ill-motivated. Co asked Catolico to explain. she would be placed on preventive suspension to protect the interests of the company. In his decision of 10 May 1993. as this would impair the company's control of purchases and. Bautro warned Catolico against the "rush delivery ofmedicines without the proper documents. On 5 May 1990. Co issued another memorandum to Catolico warning her not to negotiate with suppliersof medicine without consulting the Purchasing Department. he decided in favor of Catolico because petitioners
Issue: (1) Whether or not the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence. On 5 March 1990. in her memorandum dated 37 January 1990. besides she was not authorized to deal directly with the suppliers." since fellow employee Irene Soliven "obtained the medicines in bad faith and through misrepresentation when she claimed that she was given a charge slip by the Admitting Dept. on 2 February 1990. by contracting marriage. Irene Soliven. Co warning her not to dispense medicine to employees chargeable to the latter's accounts because the same was a prohibited practice.evidence in a case for legal separation and for disqualification from the practice of medicine which petitioner had filed against her husband. quite another is a compulsion for each one to share what one knows with the other. Indeed the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence. her side of the reported irregularity. In said letter she protested Saldaña's invasion of her privacy when Saldaña opened an envelope addressed to Catolico. Catolico. Neither may be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage.
Waterhouse Drug v NLRC Facts: Catolico was hired as a pharmacist by petitioner Waterous Drug Corporation on 15 August 1988. In a memorandum dated 21 November 1989. However." Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible "for any purpose in any proceeding.
Held: (1) No. But one thing is freedom of communication. and she was granted a 48-hour extension from 1 to 3 February 1990. explained that the check she received from YSP was aChristmas gift and not a "refund of overprice. WATEROUS Control Clerk Eugenio Valdez informed Co that he noticed an irregularity involving Catolico and Yung Shin Pharmaceuticals. And this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that each owes to the other. Catolico did not deny her responsibility but explained that her act was "due to negligence." Catolico then asked the company to look into the fraudulent activities of Soliven. In a letter dated 2 February 1990. The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a "lawful order [from a] court or when public safety or order requires otherwise. On the same date.
The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses by making it privileged. save for specified exceptions. Catolico asked for additional time to give her explanation. A person. Nevertheless. *** The right may be invoked against the wife who went ti the clinic of her husband and there took documents consisting of private communications between her husband & his alleged paramour. Catolico filed before the Office of the Labor Arbiter a complaint for unfair labor practice. issued a memorandum notifying Catolico of her termination." On 29 January 1990. illegal dismissal. Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse while the marriage subsists. through her counsel. 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. as prescribed by law. 266 for her to be able to make a satisfactory explanation. Labor Arbiter Alex Arcadio Lopez found no proof of unfair labor practice against petitioners. Inc. WATEROUS Supervisor Luzviminda Bautro. Catolico received a memorandum from WATEROUS Vice President-General Manager Emma R. Catolico requested access to the filecontaining Sales Invoice No. The constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of communication and correspondence [to be] inviolable" is no less applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband's infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. within twenty-four hours. WATEROUS SupervisorLuzviminda E.
Petitioners seasonably appealed from the decision and urged the NLRC to set it aside because the Labor Arbiter erred in finding that Catolico was denied due process and that there was no just cause to terminate her services. and she had no duty to turn it over to her employer. Catolico asserts that petitioners' evidence is too "flimsy" to justify her dismissal. Catolico's dismissal then was obviously grounded on mere suspicion. caprices. including legal representation.
was inadmissible in evidence. viz. Besides. respectively. Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is computed at one month's salary for every year of service. Company rules do not prohibit an employee from accepting gifts from clients.401. it
. Besides. that the evidence against private respondent was inadmissible for having been obtained in violation of her constitutional
Issue: Whether or Not the dismissal of the private respondent is in violation of the Constitution. and as said counsel admits. or suspicion. allowed ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself." constituted breach of confidence. the check was discovered in violation of the constitutional provision on the right to privacy and communication. The check in issue was given to her. except as to its reason for upholding the Labor Arbiter's decision. respondents' case falls apart as it is bereft of evidence which cannot be used as a legal basis for complainant's dismissal. it declared that the check was inadmissible in evidence pursuant to Sections 2 and 3(1 and 2) of Article III of the Constitution. Suspicion is not among the valid causes provided by the Labor Code for the termination of employment. On the contrary. Catolico did not oppose or raise an objection. In the case at bar. we will uphold the award of separation pay as fixed by the Labor Arbiter. It is not true.00 drawn by YSP in favor of complainant. It clearly appears then that Catolico's dismissal was based on hearsay information. Catolico was also unjustly dismissed. He thus declared the dismissal and suspension illegal but disallowed reinstatement.failed to "prove what alleged as complainant's dishonesty. No hearing was ever conducted after the issues were joined through said letters. Catolico was denied due process. Hence.. They also maintained that Catolico occupied a confidential position and that Catolico's receipt of YSP's check. Ample opportunity connotes every kind of assistance that management must accord the employee to enable him to prepare adequately for his defense. It found that petitioner's evidence consisted only of the check of P640. but modified the dispositive portion of the appealed decision by deleting the award for illegal suspension as the same was already included in the computation of the aggregate of the awards in the amount of P35. As such. as counsel for Catolico claims. however. It concluded: With the smoking gun evidence of respondents being rendered inadmissible. or probably from other suppliers. which her co-employee saw when the latter opened the envelope. WHEREFORE. by virtue of the constitutional right invoked by complainants. whims. As regards the constitutional violation upon which the NLRC anchored its decision. the NLRC affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter on the ground that petitioners were not able to prove a just cause for Catolico's dismissal from her employment. 005160-93 are AFFIRMED. It is settled that the burden is on the employer to prove just and valid cause for dismissing an employee. and even the dismissal of an employee for loss of trustand confidence must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer's arbitrariness. the dismissal was without just cause and due process. as correctly held by the NLRC. Catolico was not shown to be a managerial employee. which in no case can justify an employee's dismissal. such an invasion gives rise to both criminal and civil liabilities. Finally. given reasonable time to answer the charge. to which class of employees the term "trust and confidence" is restricted. and there is no indication in the contentious check that it was meant as a refund for overpriced medicines. and its failure to discharge that burden would result in a finding that the dismissal is unjustified. In her Comment. In this case.
Held: As to the first and second grounds. that the Bill of Rights does not protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures perpetrated by private individuals. Labor Arbiter Lopez computed the separation pay at one-half month's salary for every year of service. he correctly awarded separation pay to Catolico. Procedural due process requires that an employee be apprised of the charge against him. And contrary to the findings of NLRC. petitioners insist that Catolico had been receiving "commissions" from YSP. Catolico was given ample opportunity to explain her side of the controversy. In its decision of 30 September 1993. and that the check issued to her on 9 November 1989 was not the first or the last. the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED and the challenged decision and resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission dated 30 September 1993 and 2 December 1993. and assisted by a representative if the employee so desires. although Catolico was given an opportunity to explain her side. in NLRC-NCR CA No.86. But. that the citizens have no recourse against such assaults. since it has been determined by the Labor Arbiter that Catolico's reinstatement would not be to the best interest of the parties. hence. The NLRC then dismissed the appeal for lack of merit." and to show that any investigation was conducted. aggravated by her "propensity to violate company rules. she was dismissed from the service in the memorandum of 5 March 1990 issued by her Supervisor after receipt of her letter and that of her counsel. under the Bill of Rights.
the SC in this case said that the bill of rights does not protect citizens from unreasonable searches & seizures made by private individuals. (NACHURA)
.rights of privacy of communication and against unreasonable searches and seizures which is hereby set aside. an officer of the petitioner corporation opened an envelope addressed to the private respondent & found therein a check evidencing an overprice in the purchase of medicine. *** However. the check was deemed admissible in evidence. Despite the lack of consent on the part of the private respondent. In this case.