Case Summary (G.R. No. 247348)
Key Dates
· Relationship began: April 2, 2016
· Mother discovered messages: June–October 2016
· Photographic solicitations and photos sent: November 16, 2016
· Informations filed: December 27, 2016
· RTC Joint Decision: August 7, 2017
· CA Decision: September 17, 2018; Resolution denying reconsideration: May 9, 2019
· SC Decision (final): November 16, 2021
Applicable Law
1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 3 (privacy of communications); Republic Act No. 9775 (Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009) Sections 4(a), 3(b), 3(c)(5); Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012) Section 4(c)(2); Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173).
Factual Background
AAA and petitioner became “sweethearts” in April 2016. In October, BBB read solicitous messages on her daughter’s Facebook, including requests for motel meetings. On November 16, petitioner coaxed AAA via Facebook Messenger to send podographic images of her breasts and vagina. AAA initially complied, then deleted messages; BBB forced her to reopen petitioner’s chat and copy the evidence.
Proceedings Below
RTC Valenzuela City acquitted petitioner under RA 7610 but convicted him under RA 10175 in relation to RA 9775, sentencing him to reclusion temporal and a ₱1 million fine. CA affirmed with modification, imposing 14 years, 8 months, 1 day to 18 years, 3 months of imprisonment and the same fine. Petitioner sought SC review.
Issues
- Admissibility of Facebook Messenger evidence and petitioner’s right to privacy
- Statutory interpretation of child pornography under RA 10175/RA 9775
- Sufficiency of proof of inducement or coercion
- Applicability of the “sweetheart defense” and relevance of consent
Ruling on Privacy and Evidence Admissibility
The right to privacy safeguards against State intrusion; evidence obtained by private individuals abuses civil and data privacy laws but is governed by the Civil Code and Data Privacy Act. Petitioner waived any objection by not timely contesting admissibility and by sharing his password with AAA. No reasonable expectation of privacy remained. The Facebook chats and images were properly authenticated and admitted.
Ruling on Child Pornography Elements
Child pornography under RA 9775 requires proof that the victim is a child, was induced or coerced to produce explicit sexual material, and that creation involved electronic means. AAA’s age (14), the chat transcript showing petitioner’s persistent prodding, and use of Facebook Messenger satisfy all elements beyond reasonable doubt.
Sweetheart Defense and Consent
Although minors aged 12–18 may consent under exceptional facts (Bangayan v. People), all sexual acts with adults are inherently exploitative given the power imbalance. Consent becomes immaterial in child pornography. The “sweetheart defense” fails: petitioner’s repeated reques
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 247348)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court
- Assails Court of Appeals Decision (Sept. 17, 2018) and Resolution (May 9, 2019) in CA-G.R. CR No. 40298
- CA had affirmed with modification the August 7, 2017 Joint Decision of the RTC of Valenzuela City, Branch 270 (Criminal Case Nos. 215-V-17 & 216-V-17)
Facts
- Petitioner (24) met AAA (14) at his workplace; they began messaging on Facebook Messenger and became sweethearts on April 2, 2016
- BBB (AAA’s mother) discovered their chats in June 2016 and forbade the relationship
- On Nov. 18, 2016 BBB saw messages showing petitioner coaxing AAA to send photos of her breasts and vagina
- AAA sent the photos; BBB forced AAA to log into petitioner’s FB Messenger and copied the conversation
- Petitioner admitted lewd messages but denied sending explicit photos of himself; he pleaded not guilty
Charges and RTC Disposition
- Two informations filed Dec. 27, 2016:
• CC No. 215-V-17 – Violation of Sec. 10(a), RA 7610 (coercion of minor)
• CC No. 216-V-17 – Child pornography under Sec. 4(c)(2), RA 10175 in relation to RA 9775 - RTC acquitted petitioner under RA 7610 but convicted under RA 10175/9775
- RTC sentenced petitioner to reclusion temporal (max) and fine ₱1,000,000
- RTC ruled: AAA was a minor; petitioner’s persistent prodding produced explicit sexual activity; sweetheart defense irrelevant
Court of Appeals Decision
- Affirmed RTC’s guilty finding for RA 10175/9775 child pornography
- Minority of AAA was admitted by petitioner; inducement shown by chat logs
- Sweetheart defense rejected as offense is malum prohibitum
- Modified penalty to indeterminate reclusion temporal of 14 years, 8 months, 1 day to 18 years, 3 months + fine ₱1,000,000
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether FB Messenger evidence violated petitioner’s right to privacy and should be excluded
- Whether petitioner’s acts fall withi