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

FACTS

Petitioner Christian Cadajas was convicted for the crime of child pornography under Section 4(c)(2) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, in relation to Sections 4(a), 3(b) and 3(c)(5) of the Anti-Child Pornography Act. The conviction was based on a Facebook Messenger conversation between the petitioner and the minor victim, AAA, who was fourteen (14) years old at the time. The conversation showed that the petitioner induced AAA to send him pictures of her private parts. AAA’s mother forced AAA to open the petitioner’s Facebook Messenger account to obtain a copy of their conversation, which AAA could access because she knew the petitioner’s password due to their romantic relationship. The petitioner invoked his right to privacy regarding the admissibility of these communications and photos.

ISSUE

The primary issue addressed in the Separate Concurring Opinion is whether the petitioner’s conviction for child pornography is proper, considering his arguments regarding the right to privacy and the nature of the evidence obtained from his Facebook Messenger account.

RULING

The Separate Concurring Opinion concurs with the ponencia’s affirmation of the petitioner’s conviction. It holds that:
1. The petitioner’s invocation of the right to privacy is misplaced. The constitutional safeguards in the Bill of Rights are invoked against the State, not private individuals. Furthermore, under the Data Privacy Act, the processing and disclosure of the sensitive personal information (the sexually-explicit communications and photos) were necessary for the protection of AAA’s lawful rights and interests in court proceedings, which is a recognized exception. The petitioner also denied his own right to informational privacy as to AAA by sharing his Facebook password with her.
2. The petitioner persuaded or induced AAA to perform in the creation or production of child pornography. The elements of the crime are present: (a) AAA was a child below eighteen years old, and (b) the petitioner, through the Messenger conversation, at the very least persuaded or induced AAA to take and send a photo of her private parts. The conversation excerpts demonstrate the petitioner’s persistent requests for such photos, which constitutes inducement under the law.
The opinion concludes that there is no legal impediment to the disclosure and admissibility of the evidence, and the petitioner’s conviction should be affirmed.