BOR Privacy of Communication

Question 1

Excpetion to the Right to Privacy

Answer 1

1. By lawful order of the court; and
2. Public safety or public order as prescribed by
   law

Question 2

Concept of Communication

Answer 2

1. A speaker, seeking to signal others, uses
   conventional actions;
2. The audience so takes the actions.
   a. accepting
   the speech act’s claims or

b. opposing them
with criticism or requests for justification.

Question 3

Correspondence

Answer 3

1. Letters;
2. Messages;
3. Telephone calls;
4. Telegrams and the like

Question 4

Anti-Wire Tapping Act (R.A. No. 4200

Answer 4

A special law prohibiting and penalizing secret
recording of conversations either through wire-tapping or tape recorders.

Question 5

Prohibited Acts under R.A. No. 4200

Answer 5

(Tap-Pos-Replay-Co-Trans)

Question 6

Tap

Answer 6

To Tap any wire or cable, or by using any other
device or arrangement, to secretly overhear,
intercept, 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,
or however otherwise described by any person,
not being authorized by all the parties to any
private communication or spoken word;

Question 7

Knowingly Possess

Answer 7

To knowingly Possess any tape record, wire
record, disc record, or any other such record, or
copies thereof, of any communication or spoken
word secured either before or after the effective
date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this
law;

Question 8

Replay

Answer 8

To Replay the same for any other person or
persons;

Question 9

Communicate

Answer 9

To Communicate the contents thereof, either
verbally or in writing; or

Question 10

Transcription

Answer 10

To furnish Transcriptions thereof, whether
complete or partial, to any other person.

Question 11

Is the use of telephone extension a violation
of R.A. 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Law)?

Answer 11

NO. The use of a telephone extension for the
purpose of overhearing a private conversation
without authorization did not violate R.A. 4200
because a telephone extension devise was neither
among those “devices or arrangements”
enumerated therein.

Question 12

Is the secretly taping by a party to the
confrontation illegal.

Answer 12

YES. The law is unambiguous in seeking to penalize even those privy to the private
communications. Where the law makes no distinctions, one does not distinguish

Question 13

Is the video recording of a heated
exchange between the accused and the victim
that took place at the lobby of the hotel barely 30
minutes before the killing a violation of the right to privacy of a party?

Answer 13

Since the exchange of heated words was not private, its videotape recording is not prohibited (Navarro v. CA)

Question 14

: Are letters of a husband’s paramour kept
inside the husband’s drawer, presented by the
wife in the proceeding for legal separation,
admissible in evidence?

Answer 14

: NO.

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.

A person, by contracting marriage, 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.
(Zulueta v. CA, G.R. No.
107383, Feb. 20, 1996)

Question 15

: Is a regulation mandating the opening of mail
or correspondence of prisoners or detainees
violative of the constitutional right to privacy?

Answer 15

The curtailment of certain rights is necessary
to accommodate institutional needs and objectives
of prison facilities, primarily internal security.

However, if the letters are marked confidential
communication between the detainees and their
lawyers, the detention officials should not read the
letters but only open the envelopes for inspection in
the presence of the detainees.

A law is not needed before an executive officer may
intrude into the rights of privacy of a detainee or a
prisoner. By the very fact of their detention, they
have diminished expectations of privacy rights.
(Alejano v. Cabuay, G.R. No. 160792, 25 Aug. 2005)

Question 16

INTRUSION

Answer 16

A limited intrusion into a person’s privacy has long
been regarded as permissible where that person is
a public figure and the information sought to be
elicited from him or to be published about him
constitute of a public character.

Question 17

Pollo attacks the backing
up of his files as it was done without his
knowledge and consent, thus infringing on his
constitutional right to privacy. Is he correct?

Answer 17

NO. Public employers have an interest in
ensuring that their agencies operate in an effective
and efficient manner, and the work of these agencies
inevitably suffers from the inefficiency,
incompetence, mismanagement, or other work-related misfeasance of its employees.

Question 18

Karina David case:

1. Probable cause
   2.

Answer 18

1. Probable cause reqt: A probable cause requirement for searches of the
   type at issue here would impose intolerable
   burdens on public employers
2. The delay in
   correcting the employee misconduct caused by the
   need for probable cause rather than reasonable
   suspicion will be translated into tangible and often
   irreparable damage to the agency’s work, and
   ultimately to the public interest

Question 19

Karina David “reasonable expectation of privacy”

Answer 19

Pollo failed to prove that he had an actual
(subjective) expectation of privacy either in his
office or government-issued computer which
contained his personal files. He did not allege that he
had a separate enclosed office which he did not
share with anyone, or that his office was always
locked and not open to other employees or visitors.

Question 20

What is the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Test

Answer 20

1. Whether, by his conduct, the individual has
   exhibited an expectation of privacy; and
2. This expectation is one that society recognizes
   as reasonable. (Ople v. Torres,

Question 21

Aldo Inc. then installed two cameras on their
building facing the property of the Sps. Hing. The
spouses contend that the installation of the
cameras was an invasion of their privacy

Answer 21

The installation
of these cameras, however, should not cover places
where there is reasonable expectation of privacy,
unless the consent of the individual, whose right to
privacy would be affected, was obtained.

Question 22

Exclusionary rule (“The Fruit of the Poisonous
Tree Doctrine”)

Answer 22

GR: Any evidence obtained in violation of the
Constitution shall be inadmissible for any purpose
in any proceeding

Question 23

Exception to Exclusionary Rule

Answer 23

XPNS:
1. In the absence of any governmental
interference, the protection guaranteed by the
Constitution cannot be invoked against the
State; (People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561, 18 Jan.
1991)

2. It may be used in judicial or administrative
   action that may be filed against the erring
   officer; or (Cruz and Cruz, 2015)
3. There is an express or implied waiver.