Section 3. privacy of communication and correspondence Flashcards
Art. III, Sec. 3(1).
The privacy of communication
and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order
requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
Communication and Correspondence includes the following:
1.) Letters
2.) Telephone calls
3.) Telegrams
4.) Other messages
No XII - “A” has a telephone line with an extension. One day, “A” was talking to “B” over the telephone. “A” conspired with his friend “C”, who was at the end of the extension line listening to “A’s” telephone conversation with “B” in order to overhear and tape-record the conversation wherein “B” confidentially admitted that with evident premeditation, he (B) killed “D” for having cheated him in their business partnership. “B” was not aware that the telephone conversation was being tape- recorded.
The tape-recorded conversation is not admissible in evidence. As held in Salcedo- Ortanez vs. Court of Appeals, 235 SCRA 111 (1994). Republic Act No. 4200 makes the tape- recording of a telephone conversation done without the authorization of all the parties to the conversation, inadmissible in evidence. In addition, the taping of the conversation violated the guarantee of privacy of communications enunciated in Section 3, Article III of the Constitution.
No VII. - The police had suspicions that Juan Samson, member of the subversive New Proletarian Army, was using the mail for propaganda purposes in gaining new adherents to its cause. The Chief of Police of Bantolan, Lanao del Sur ordered the Postmaster of the town to intercept and open all mail addressed to and coming from Juan Samson in the interest of the national security. Was the order of the Chief of Police valid? (5%)
No, the order of the Chief of Police is not valid, because there is no law which authorizes him to order the Postmaster to open the letters addressed to and coming from Juan Samson. An official in the Executive Department cannot interfere with the privacy of correspondence and communication in the absence of a law authorizing him to do so or a lawful order of the court. Section 3(1), Article III of the Constitution provides:
“The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.”
No. 8: While serving sentence in Muntinlupa for the crime of theft, “X” stabbed dead one of his guards, “X” was charged with murder. During his trial, the prosecution introduced as evidence a letter written in prison by “X” to his wife tending to establish that the crime of murder was the result of premeditation. The letter was written voluntarily. In the course of inspection, it was opened and read by a warden pursuant to the rules of discipline of the Bureau of Prisons and considering its contents, the letter was turned over to the prosecutor. The lawyer of “X” objected to the presentation of the letter and moved for its return on the ground that it violates the right of “X” against unlawful search and seizure. Decide.
The objection of the lawyer must be sustained, Section 3(1), Article IV of the 1987 Constitution provides:
“The privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the court, or when public
safety or order requires otherwise as
prescribed by law.”
There was no court order which authorized the warden to read the letter of “X”. Neither is there any law specifically authorizing the Bureau of Prisons to read the letter of “X”, Under Section 3(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, to interfere with any correspondence when there is no court order, there must be a law authorizing it in the interest of public safety or order.
The ruling of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Stroud vs. United States, 251 U.S. 15 is not applicable here, because Section 3(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution has no counterpart in the American Constitution. Hence, in accordance with Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, the letter is inadmissible in evidence.
