G.R. No. 247348 - Cadajas y Cabias vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 247348)

Petitioner, Respondent, and Key Dates

Petitioner: Christian Cadajas y Cabias. Respondent: People of the Philippines. Key factual dates: relationship formed April 2, 2016; solicitation and exchange of messages/photos occurred mid-November 2016 (around November 16–18, 2016). Informations filed: December 27, 2016. RTC Joint Decision: August 7, 2017. CA Decision: September 17, 2018; CA Resolution denying reconsideration: May 9, 2019. Supreme Court En Banc Decision: November 16, 2021.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Primary statutes: Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9775 (Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009); R.A. No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012) — specifically Section 4(c)(2) imposing penalties one degree higher where child pornography is committed through a computer system; R.A. No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children) was the basis of a separate charge. Data-privacy considerations under R.A. No. 10173 (Data Privacy Act of 2012) are invoked in evidentiary/privacy analysis. Constitutional reference: 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 3 (privacy of communication and correspondence; exclusionary rule for evidence obtained in violation).

Facts Established at Trial

Petitioner met AAA in the canteen where he worked; AAA (14) initiated persistent contact and later friended him on Facebook Messenger. They exchanged messages and, after a period of courtship, were “sweethearts.” BBB discovered the relationship in mid-2016 and objected. In November 2016 petitioner’s messages reportedly coaxed AAA to send nude photos of her breasts and vagina; AAA ultimately sent photos. When BBB read the conversations she compelled AAA to open petitioner’s Messenger account to obtain copies. Petitioner admitted to certain provocative messages but denied sending photos of his private parts. Two criminal informations were filed against petitioner.

Informations Filed (Criminal Case Nos. 215‑V‑17 and 216‑V‑17)

Criminal Case No. 215‑V‑17 charged violation of Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610: that petitioner, acting with lewd design and abuse of minority, coerced AAA (14) to send pictures of her breasts and vagina through Facebook Messenger, endangering her development. Criminal Case No. 216‑V‑17 charged child pornography under Section 4(c)(2) of R.A. No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act) in relation to Sections 4(a), 3(b) and 3(c)(5) of R.A. No. 9775 (Anti‑Child Pornography Act): that petitioner, acting with lewd design, induced AAA (14) to send photos of her vagina and breasts through Facebook Messenger.

RTC Findings and Disposition

The RTC acquitted petitioner of the R.A. 7610 charge (Crim. Case No. 215‑V‑17), finding the protective mantle of R.A. 7610 wanting given factual findings about the victim’s conduct and lack of evident effect. The RTC convicted petitioner for child pornography (Crim. Case No. 216‑V‑17) under R.A. 10175 in relation to R.A. 9775, sentencing him to reclusion temporal and a fine of P1,000,000.00. The RTC found petitioner aware of AAA’s minority, that petitioner persistently induced her to send explicit photos, and that the conduct constituted lascivious exhibition falling within R.A. 9775; the court characterized the statute as malum prohibitum in its reasoning regarding irrelevance of the “relationship” defense.

Court of Appeals Decision

The CA affirmed the RTC’s factual findings that AAA was a minor and that petitioner induced her to send explicit photos through Facebook Messenger; it rejected petitioner’s “sweetheart” defense. The CA modified the penalty to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 18 years and 3 months (with the fine retained). The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.

Issues Raised to the Supreme Court

Petitioner argued, inter alia: (1) that admission of the Messenger communications and photos violated his right to privacy and were therefore inadmissible; (2) that the alleged acts did not constitute an offense under the charged statutes; (3) that the CA misinterpreted Section 4(c)(2) of R.A. 10175 in relation to the Anti‑Child Pornography Act; and (4) that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Supreme Court Holding (En Banc)

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The En Banc Court affirmed the CA with modification: petitioner was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of child pornography under Section 4(c)(2) of R.A. 10175 in relation to Sections 4(a), 3(b) and 3(c)(5) of R.A. 9775. The Court modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua (one degree higher than reclusion temporal maximum under R.A. 9775, pursuant to R.A. 10175) with accessory penalties, and imposed a fine of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00).

Supreme Court Analysis — Right to Privacy and Admissibility of Evidence

The Court analyzed the scope of the constitutional right to privacy (Article III, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution) and the exclusionary rule, emphasizing that the Bill of Rights primarily governs state action and evidence obtained by state agents. The Court noted jurisprudence on informational privacy and applied the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test (two‑part: exhibited expectation and societal recognition of reasonableness). The Court found no state agent was responsible for obtaining the challenged materials; the Messenger contents were obtained by a private individual (BBB via AAA). The Data Privacy Act (R.A. 10173) permits processing of sensitive personal information when necessary to protect lawful rights and interests in court proceedings. Critically, the Court found petitioner voluntarily gave his Messenger password to AAA, thereby limiting his expectation of privacy against her; petitioner did not claim hacking or unauthorized access. The Court also stressed that petitioner failed to make a timely objection at trial to the admissibility of the materials; failure to object constituted waiver. Accordingly, the Messenger messages and photos were ruled admissible and properly authenticated when AAA identified them in court.

Supreme Court Analysis — Elements of Offense and Proof of Liability

The Court articulated the elements of child pornography under R.A. 9775 and its cybercrime counterpart: (1) victim is a child; (2) the child was induced or coerced to perform in the creation/production of child pornography; and (3) the representation was made through visual/audio/written means, including electronic means (computer system). The Court found that (a) AAA’s minority was proven and admitted by petitioner; (b) the Facebook Messenger transcript and AAA’s testimony establish petitioner’s inducement (specific exhortations and commands to produce nude photos, and AAA’s account that she sent the photos because petitioner instructed and repeatedly urged her); and (c) use of a mobile phone and Messenger falls within the statutory definition of a “computer system.” The Court rejected petitioner’s contention that lack of intent to distribute or sell the images exculpated him, citing legislative history showing that R.A. 9775 criminalizes even mere possession and that the statute’s prohibitions extend beyond commercial production or distribution. The Court concluded that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the cybercrime of child pornography.

Supreme Court Analysis — Sweetheart Defense and Consent

The Supreme Court rejected petitioner’s “sweetheart” defense. The Court reiterated that where a minor is persuaded, induced or coerced, consent is immaterial; the law affords special protection to minors. The Court emphasized the age disparity (24 versus 14), petitioner’s awareness of AAA’s minority (BBB warned him), and the vulnerability and immaturity of minors. The Court held that romantic relationship allegations do not negate culpability where persuasion or inducement is established; the “sweetheart” defense, even where raised, bears a heavy burden and depends on the totality of circumstances, which here, the courts below found insufficient to rebut inducement.

Penalty Determination

R.A. 10175 prescribes that penalties for child pornography committed through a computer system shall be one degree higher than those in R.A. 9775. Under Section 15(b) of R.A. 9775 the penalty is reclus

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 247348)

Case Citation, Court and Date

G.R. No. 247348; EN BANC decision promulgated November 16, 2021.
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 from the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 40298 (Decision dated September 17, 2018; Resolution dated May 9, 2019).
Original Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 270, in Criminal Case Nos. 215-V-17 and 216-V-17 (dated August 7, 2017) is the subject of review.

Parties and Roles

Petitioner: Christian Cadajas y Cabias (then 24 years old).
Respondent: People of the Philippines (prosecution).
Victim identified in records as AAA (14 years old at time of events); protective rules invoked to withhold identity.
Lower-court judges and justices identified in the record: Presiding Judge Evangeline M. Francisco (RTC); Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi (CA); Ponente at the Supreme Court: Justice Lopez; several separate concurring and dissenting opinions detailed.

Antecedent Facts (Relationship and Online Exchanges)

Petitioner, employed at a school canteen, met AAA (14) after AAA’s younger sibling told petitioner AAA had a crush on him.
AAA pursued petitioner persistently and sent him a Facebook Messenger request, which he accepted; they exchanged messages and petitioner courted AAA for about two weeks; they became "sweethearts" on April 2, 2016.
AAA’s mother (BBB) discovered their relationship in June 2016 by reading messages on AAA’s Facebook account when AAA used or left her mother’s phone logged in.
BBB repeatedly admonished petitioner to stay away because AAA was a minor; petitioner and AAA ignored admonitions.
In October and again in November 2016, BBB discovered messages in which petitioner had allegedly coaxed AAA to meet at a motel and to send photos of her breasts and vagina; AAA eventually sent the photos.
On November 17, 2016, AAA asked petitioner to delete messages; petitioner commented on AAA’s behavior and broke up with her the same day.
BBB forced AAA to open petitioner’s Facebook Messenger account and procured copies of their messages and photos; those materials were later used by the prosecution.

Informations, Charges and Arraignment

Two informations filed December 27, 2016:
- Criminal Case No. 215-V-17: Violation of Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 (alleged coercion of a 14-year-old child to send pictures of her breasts and vagina).
- Criminal Case No. 216-V-17: Child pornography under 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 (alleged inducement of a 14-year-old to send photos of breasts and vagina through Facebook Messenger using a mobile phone).
Petitioner pleaded not guilty at arraignment.

Trial Court Findings and Sentence (RTC, Branch 270)

RTC acquitted petitioner of the R.A. No. 7610 charge (Criminal Case No. 215-V-17), finding prosecution failed to prove all elements beyond reasonable doubt—court described AAA as a "city lass" and said protective mantle of RA 7610 was wanting.
RTC convicted petitioner of child pornography (Criminal Case No. 216-V-17) under R.A. No. 9775 provisions (Sections 4(a), 3(b) and (c)(5)) and sentenced him to reclusion temporal and a fine of P1,000,000.00.
RTC rationale: petitioner knew AAA was a minor and obstinately prodded her to send photos of private parts; conduct constituted explicit sexual activity/lascivious exhibition induced by petitioner; court treated RA 9775 violation as malum prohibitum and found sweetheart defense irrelevant.

Court of Appeals Ruling

CA affirmed RTC’s conviction for child pornography but modified the penalty: indeterminate imprisonment of 14 years, 8 months and 1 day (minimum) to 18 years and 3 months (maximum); fine retained.
CA held: AAA’s minority established and admitted by petitioner; conversation showed petitioner induced AAA to send photos; child pornography under Section 4(c)(2) of R.A. No. 10175 in relation to RA 9775 proved; sweetheart defense not credited because the offense was malum prohibitum in CA’s view.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether CA erred in admitting prosecution evidence taken from petitioner’s Facebook Messenger account for allegedly violating petitioner’s right to privacy.
Whether CA erred in convicting petitioner under 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, arguing the complained act does not constitute an offense under those statutes.
Whether CA erred in interpreting unlawful and punishable acts under Section 4(c)(2) of R.A. No. 10175 in relation to RA 9775 provisions.
Whether CA erred in finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Supreme Court Majority Ruling — Disposition

Petition denied; CA Decision dated September 17, 2018 and CA Resolution dated May 9, 2019 AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Final conviction: Petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of child pornography under 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.
Final penalty: sentence modified to reclusion perpetua (one degree higher than reclusion temporal) with accessory penalties; fine of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) imposed.

Majority Reasoning — Admissibility and Privacy (right to informational privacy)

Constitutional right to privacy defined and recognized; Bill of Rights protects against state intrusion; Article III, Sec. 3 quoted.
Bill of Rights is principally a protection against the State; provisions not automatically applicable to disputes among private individuals.
Zulueta v. CA was discussed and the majority treated its pronouncements on admissibility between private parties as not binding precedent for the general rule (calling it obiter dictum in the ponencia) and reiterated that violations of privacy between private individuals are governed by the Civil Code, the Data Privacy Act (DPA), and pertinents laws.
In this case, the photos and conversations used as evidence were obtained by a private individual (AAA and BBB), not by state agents; thus Constitutional exclusionary rule (Art. III, Sec. 3(2)) does not automatically apply.
DPA (RA 10173) allows processing of sensitive personal information for determination of criminal liability and for protection of lawful rights and interests in court proceedings; therefore the processing and use of the communications and photos for prosecution are permissible under the DPA.
The "reasonable expectation of privacy" test (Spouses Hing v. Choachuy, Sr.) applied: petitioner voluntarily gave his Facebook Messenger password to AAA, thereby limiting his expectation of privacy as to AAA; petitioner did not claim hacking or unauthorized access.
Because petitioner voluntarily authorized AAA to access his account and did not exclude AAA from access, his expectation of privacy as to AAA was limited; therefore no constitutional violation occurred.
Petitioner failed to timely object to admissibility at trial; failure to interpose timely objection waives such grounds on appeal; issue raised for the first time on appeal barred by estoppel.
Conclusion: evidence taken from Facebook Messenger was admissible and properly authenticated (AAA identified materials in open court); exclusionary rule not applicable here.

Majority Reasoning — Elements of Liability under RA 9775 and RA 10175; Findings of Fact

Statutory elements summarized for conviction under child pornography statutes: (1) victim is a child; (2) victim was induced or coerced to perform in creation/production of child pornography; (3) the child pornography was performed through visual/audio/written means by electronic/digital means.
Uncontested: AAA was 14 years old (birth certificate in evidence); petitioner was aware AAA’s minority (BBB repeatedly told him).
Evidence: Facebook Messenger conversation quoted by courts and testimony of AAA established petitioner induced AAA to send photos of her breasts and vagina through his prodding and specific orders (ask to undress, to spread legs, to point camera).
AAA’s testimony: she sent the pictures because petitioner instructed/asked her repeatedly; she testified she was "napilitan" (she was forced/compelled by the constant prodding).
The majority treated the jacket of messages as evidence of inducement: petitioner’s repeated commands and prodding caused AAA to send images; without petitioner’s inducement she would not have undressed and sent photos.
Mobile phone is a "computer system" under RA 10175 (Section 3(g)), so use of Facebook Messenger on a phone brings the act under Section 4(c)(2) of RA 10175 (cyber child pornography).
Possession or production for non-commercial/personal use does not absolve liability—RA 9775 penalizes mere possession and differentiates possession from distribution/intent to sell but does criminalize creation/inducement even for private viewing.
The courts a quo did not err: prosecution proved induceme