G.R. No. 247348 , November 16, 2021
CHRISTIAN CADAJAS Y CABIAS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This case involves a Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Justice Leonen regarding the conviction of Christian Cadajas for violation of Section 4(c)(2) of Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012) in relation to Sections 4(a), 3(b) and 3(c)(5) of Republic Act No. 9775 (Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009). Justice Leonen agrees with the ponencia that the conviction should be upheld. The opinion delves into the nature of child pornography as a malum prohibitum offense and discusses the interplay between the constitutional right to privacy and the state’s duty to provide special protection to children.

ISSUE

The primary legal issue addressed in this opinion is whether the inherent immorality of child pornography precludes its characterization as a malum prohibitum offense, and how the right to informational privacy should be calibrated against the paramount state interest in protecting children from abuse and exploitation, particularly in cyberspace.

RULING

Justice Leonen concurs in the result of upholding Cadajas’s conviction. The ruling posits that:
1. The characterization of child pornography as a malum prohibitum offense is consistent with the constitutional mandate of giving special protection to children against all forms of abuse.
2. The right to privacy, while a fundamental right, is not absolute. In the context of child pornography, the state’s compelling interest in protecting children justifies the restriction of this right.
3. A child cannot legally give consent to a lascivious act, and the “sweetheart theory” cannot be invoked as a defense against a charge of child pornography.
4. In the digital era, there is a need to recalibrate the understanding of the right to informational privacy, giving primacy to the best interests of the child as a paramount consideration. The state must be vigilant in cyberspace to prevent the exploitation of children.