Case Summary (G.R. No. 261049)
Key Dates
Incident alleged: October 11, 2016. RTC Joint Decision: February 8, 2019. Court of Appeals Decision: June 25, 2021. CA Resolution denying reconsideration: May 16, 2022. Supreme Court Decision resolving the petition: June 26, 2023.
Charges and Informations
Petitioner was charged in four criminal informations for violation of Section 4(a) of RA No. 9995 for allegedly taking video coverage and capturing images of the private areas of the victims (naked while bathing) without consent and under circumstances where the victims had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Each information corresponded to one offended party (Criminal Case Nos. 18882–18885).
Factual Findings Presented at Trial
The prosecution’s case relied on the testimony of the four offended parties and a construction worker. The victims are related (three sisters and a cousin) and lived in the same house where renovations were ongoing and the petitioner — their uncle — frequented as supervisor. AAA261049 discovered a Blackberry phone hidden in a Safeguard soap box with its video recorder running; she recognized the phone as belonging to the petitioner and initially saw a video that showed the petitioner setting up the device. AAA261049 deleted that particular video out of shock, then browsed the phone and found multiple nude videos of the victims bathing. She used her own phone to capture snippets or stills of the videos, copied those images to a DVD-R and printed stills for evidence, and later reported the incident to the barangay. Other victims corroborated AAA261049’s account and viewed the stills; Richard testified that the laborers had no access to the floor with the bathroom. The prosecution offered printed images, a DVD-R, and the soap box as physical evidence.
Defense Position
Petitioner denied the allegations, asserted that he had lost a similar phone months earlier, and contended the victims fabricated the story out of personal dislike. He challenged identification and argued the evidence against him was circumstantial and insufficient, noting (1) multiple construction workers were present, (2) a single sighting of him entering the bathroom did not identify him as the perpetrator, (3) the crucial video showing him setting up the device had been deleted by AAA261049, and (4) no incontrovertible proof of ownership of the subject phone was presented.
Trial Court and Court of Appeals Dispositions
The RTC convicted the petitioner in three cases (Criminal Case Nos. 18882–18884) and acquitted him in one case (Criminal Case No. 18885) for insufficiency of evidence (no photo/video of DDD261049 was presented). The RTC imposed imprisonment within the statutory range and fines, and awarded moral and exemplary damages plus attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in its entirety. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
Whether the petitioner’s guilt for violation of Section 4(a) of RA No. 9995 was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Legal Elements and Standards Applied
The Court parsed Section 4(a) of RA No. 9995 into the following elements: (1) the accused took a photo or video of a person performing a sexual act or captured an image of a private area (genitals, pubic area, buttocks, female breast); (2) the capture was without the consent of the person/s involved; and (3) it occurred under circumstances in which the person/s had a reasonable expectation of privacy (as defined in RA No. 9995, sec. 3(f)). The Court reaffirmed established standards that (a) conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence when the facts form a convincing and coherent chain (citing Rule 133, Section 4 and pertinent jurisprudence), and (b) credibility and factual findings of the trial court are accorded great weight absent clear misapprehension of material facts. The Constitutionally grounded policy of valuing dignity and privacy (as reflected in RA No. 9995 and the 1987 Constitution’s protection of rights) informed the statutory interpretation and remedial objectives.
Analysis of Identity and Circumstantial Evidence
The Court concluded that the identity of the perpetrator was established beyond reasonable doubt through convergent circumstantial facts: (1) the nude videos of the victims were captured by a Blackberry phone and stills from that phone were authenticated and admitted in evidence without objection; (2) witnesses consistently testified that only the petitioner had that type of phone in the household and used it frequently; (3) petitioner was present and had used the bathroom immediately before AAA261049’s turn, with the phone recording for around nine minutes—coinciding with the time taken to set up the device; (4) construction workers had no access to the floor with the bathroom; and (5) the first video AAA261049 viewed showed petitioner in the act of setting up the phone. Taken together, these facts constituted an unbroken chain linking the petitioner to the act. The decision emphasized that individual strands of circumstantial proof must be viewed collectively rather than in isolation.
Addressing the Deleted Video and Witness Conduct
The Court rejected the argument that AAA261049’s deletion of the video showing petitioner undermined her credibility or the prosecution’s case. It recognized that victims’ reactions to startling and horrifying discoveries are unpredictable and that deleting the video immediately out of fear was a plausible human response that did not impeach her testimony. The Court deferred to the trial court’s credibility assessments, noting the trial court’s direct observation of witness demeanor and that the CA affirmed those assessments.
Lack of Motive and Weight of Denial
The Court found the petitioner’s suggestion of fabrication motivated by domestic dislike unpersuasive. The absence of evidence of ill motive and the professional standing of the victims made fabrication improbable. The petitioner’s categorical denial, unaccompanied by corroborating evidence, was characterized as an inherently weak and self-serving defense that failed to overcome the cumulative weight of the prosecution’s evidence.
Consent and Expectation of Privacy
The Court held that the videos were taken without consent because they were recorded covertly—hidden inside a soap box in the bathroom. The recording occurred under circumstances in which a reasonable person would expect privacy while disrobing and bathing; thus the statutory element of reasonable expectation of privacy was satisfied.
Conviction, Penalties, and Dama
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 261049)
Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reporter citation: 942 Phil. 770, Second Division; G.R. No. 261049; Decision promulgated June 26, 2023; penned by Justice M. Lopez.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing:
- Court of Appeals Decision dated June 25, 2021 in CA-G.R. CR No. 43881 (affirming RTC);
- Court of Appeals Resolution dated May 16, 2022 denying motion for reconsideration.
- Lower court disposition: Regional Trial Court (RTC), Joint Decision dated February 8, 2019 (Branch and locale redacted pursuant to administrative circulars), convicting petitioner in Criminal Cases Nos. 18882–18884 and acquitting in Criminal Case No. 18885 for insufficiency of evidence.
- Nature of case: Criminal prosecution for violation of Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 9995 (Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009).
- Final disposition by the Supreme Court: Petition denied; CA and RTC decisions affirmed with modifications to awards of damages and deletion of attorney’s fees; legal interest imposed at 6% per annum on monetary awards from finality.
Parties and Identities
- Petitioner: Referred throughout as XXX261049 (initials used pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015).
- Respondent: People of the Philippines.
- Complainants / offended parties: Identified by initials—AAA261049, BBB261049, CCC261049, and DDD261049 (fictitious initials pursuant to administrative circular).
- Other relevant persons: Richard Castillo (Richard) — a construction worker present during house renovation.
- Relationship context: AAA261049, BBB261049, and DDD261049 are sisters; CCC261049 is their cousin; XXX261049 is their uncle who frequented the house while supervising renovation.
Facts as Found by Trial Court (RTC) and Summarized by the Supreme Court
- Time and place: On or about October 11, 2016, at the victims’ house (geographic specifics redacted).
- Accusation in Criminal Case No. 18882 (sample count): Accused allegedly took video coverage of AAA261049 while she was bathing and captured her private areas without consent and under circumstances in which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy, contrary to law.
- Common factual matrix for the four informations: similarly worded charges against XXX261049 for taking photos/videos of the private areas of the named victims while bathing.
- Sequence of events as testified by AAA261049:
- She prepared hot water in the kitchen and observed her uncle enter the bathroom.
- After about five minutes, XXX261049 exited the bathroom; AAA261049 then proceeded to use it.
- She noticed a tiny light through a small hole in a Safeguard soap box on a shelf; inside was a Blackberry phone with the video function running (about nine minutes).
- She recognized the phone as XXX261049’s; the phone was positioned to record the bath area.
- She viewed the recording and saw a video showing XXX261049 setting up the phone in the bathroom at its beginning.
- Initially deleted that incriminating video out of shock and fear; then browsed and found multiple nude videos of herself and of BBB261049, DDD261049, and CCC261049.
- She used her own phone to capture snippets/stills of several of the videos (but was unable to capture a still/video including DDD261049).
- She returned the phone to the soap box, locked herself in her room, informed her aunt and then her mother, and thereafter the other victims; they copied stills to DVD-R and printed copies; reported incident to the barangay the next day.
- Corroborative testimony:
- BBB261049, DDD261049, and CCC261049 corroborated AAA261049’s account and saw the naked stills captured by AAA261049.
- Richard testified that the construction workers had no access to the floor where the bathroom was located.
- Family members uniformly testified that the Blackberry phone was the type used only by XXX261049 in that household and that they frequently saw him using it.
- Physical evidence presented by the prosecution: printed naked images taken by AAA261049 from the Blackberry phone, DVD-R containing copied scandalous materials, and the Safeguard soap box.
Defense and Petitioner’s Contentions
- XXX261049’s testimony: Denial of allegations; claimed to have lost a similar type of phone three months before the incident.
- Defense assertions:
- The evidence against him is entirely circumstantial and insufficient for conviction.
- Prosecution testimony was incredible and motivated by dislike of the uncle for reprimanding nieces.
- Presence at the house and use of the bathroom does not identify him as the perpetrator because four construction workers were also present.
- The single instance of AAA261049 seeing him entering the bathroom is insufficient to single him out.
- No proof corroborated AAA261049’s claim that she saw XXX261049 in one of the videos setting up the phone; the failure to preserve the video that showed his face undermines the prosecution case.
- Lack of incontrovertible proof that he owned the phone in which videos were found.
- It would be foolish for him to set up the phone while AAA261049 was nearby and risk being observed.
Issue Presented
- Was XXX261049’s guilt for violation of Section 4(a) of RA No. 9995 proven beyond reasonable doubt?
Legal Elements of the Offense as Parsed by the Court
- Statutory provision quoted: Section 4(a), RA No. 9995 — Prohibited Acts:
- To take photo or video coverage of a person performing sexual act or similar activity or to capture an image of the private area (naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, female breast) without consent and under circumstances in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
- Three parsed elements:
- (1) The accused took a photo or video or captured an image of the private area as defined;
- (2) The photo/video was taken without the consent of the person(s) involved;
- (3) The photo/video was taken under circumstances in which the person(s) had a reasonable expectation of privacy (RA No. 9995, sec. 3(f) definition of reasonable expectation of privacy is applied).
- Court’s conclusion: All elements were established with respect to AAA261049, BBB261049, and CCC261049; evidence insufficient as to DDD261049 (hence acquittal in Criminal Case No. 18885).
Evidentiary Findings and Credibility Assessment
- Reliability of prosecution evidence:
- Still images captured by AAA261049 from the Blackberry phone were presented and admitted in evidence without objection.
- Convergent testimonial evidence established that only XXX261049 had that type of phone in the household, he was present and used the bathroom immediately before AAA261049, the phone was found recording for about nine minutes coinciding with circumstances, construction workers lacked access