THE Supreme Court has reiterated that using online chat logs and videos as evidence does not violate a person’s right to privacy if they are used to determine that a crime has been committed.
This was the gist of an October 9, 2024 decision by the SC’s Second Division where it ruled that Eul Vincent Rodriguez engaged in human trafficking using Facebook and other online platforms.
Rodriguez was convicted of qualified trafficking in persons under Republic Act No. 9208 or the Anti-Trafficking of Persons Act of 2003 by a regional trial court, which held that the witnesses for the prosecution were credible, significantly corroborative on material points, and unstained by any improper motive.
The Court of Appeals upheld his conviction on June 17, 2021 and rejected his motion for reconsideration on February 22, 2022, prompting Rodriquez to elevate the case to the SC.
The SC affirmed Rodriguez’s sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of P 2 million. He was also ordered to pay P600,000 in damages, with a legal interest of six percent per annum from the finality of judgment, until full payment.
Records of the case showed that in 2013, the Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force of Region 7 began investigating Rodriguez after receiving a tip from the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement on his alleged illegal activities.
Police Officer 3 Jerry Gambi used a decoy account to communicate with Rodriguez across various online platforms, recording their correspondence.
In their initial interactions online, Rodriguez offered Gambi nude shows in exchange for money, including one involving Rodriguez’s minor cousins.
Police set up an entrapment operation where Gambi told Rodriguez that a foreign friend was staying at a certain hotel. Hearing this, 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,” an undercover confidential informant of the Task Force.
Upon Rodriguez’s acceptance of the payment, he was arrested and charged.
In upholding Rodriguez’s conviction, the SC said the videos and recordings of the chat logs of his conversations with Gambi can be admitted as evidence.
The High Court rejected Rodriguez’s arguments that they were inadmissible because they violated his privacy rights, with the magistrates stressing that Republic Act 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.
The High Court held that 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.
It 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.
“Moreover, as aptly held by the appellate court, 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,” the SC ruling penned by Associate Justice Mario Lopez said.
Concurring with the decision were Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen and Associate Justices Jhosep Lopez and Antonio Kho Jr.
“Upon judicious review of the records of the case, the Court adopts the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. The Court upholds the ruling of the courts a quo that Rodriguez’s guilt for the offense of qualified trafficking against AAA was proven beyond reasonable doubt. We stress that factual findings of the trial court, including its assessment of the credibility of witnesses, and the probative weight of their testimonies, as well as of the documentary evidence, are accorded great weight and respect, especially when the same are affirmed by the CA,” it added.
The SC also junked arguments that he was instigated by Gambi to commit the acts for which he was charged.
“Undeniably, the criminal intent originated from Rodriguez himself. The idea and resolve to commit the crime came from him. There was no illicit inducement on the part of the police for Rodriguez to commit the crime. Verily, the incident was an entrapment operation, not an instigation. It is settled that entrapment operations have been sanctioned as a means of arresting offenders who traffic persons. Thus, Rodriguez was validly arrested, rendering the search and seizure incidental to his arrest valid,” the SC explained.
