MAY A MOTHER charge her daughter’s boyfriend with criminal cases using as evidence photographs found in his Facebook messenger account?
***
There is no age requirement for access to the internet.
Young adults, pre-teens, even toddlers, are now imbibing their values from the invisible tentacles of the internet.
This has given rise to the enactment of several laws aimed at protecting children from internet abuse.
Among them is Republic Act 9775, or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009. This law makes it illegal for anyone to produce, offer, distribute, or even just to “possess” child pornography.
***
Possession of child pornography was highlighted in a case recently decided by the Supreme Court.
A 24 year-old man (Gino – not his real name) befriended a 14 year-old girl (Jean – not her real name) that he met at a shopping mall where he was working. They became Facebook “friends,” and then sweethearts after a brief courtship.
The relationship involved constant communication over Facebook messenger.
***
One day Jean’s mother was able to access Jean’s messenger chats when she forgot to log out of her account. Jean would constantly borrow her mother’s cellular phone to chat with Gino.
The mother was able to read the messages and was shocked to know that Gino had been coaxing Jean to go with him to a motel. The mother was opposed to the relationship because of Jean’s youth.
It got worse when the mother read another conversation where Gino was urging Jean to send him pictures of her private parts. Jean agreed and sent compromising photos to Gino.
***
Jean deleted the photos from her messenger when she knew her mother was able to read the messages between her and Gino.
However, the mother was able to recover the compromising pictures after she prevailed upon Jean to access them by using Gino’s messenger account. Gino had given Jean his password.
Armed with incriminating conversations and pictures, the mother filed complaints against Gino for violations of the anti-child abuse act and the anti-child pornography act because being under eighteen years of age Jean was legally a “child.”
***
Gino sought an acquittal by invoking his right to privacy.
Gino claimed that the photographs were not admissible in evidence because they were procured in violation of a guaranteed right under the Bill of Rights. His personal FB messenger account was his private space.
Another argument is that he is not engaged in the business of distributing pornography for gain. The pictures were for his personal consumption and remained strictly private until Jean’s mother accessed them using the password that he gave his girlfriend.
If you were the judge trying this case, would you acquit Gino?
***
The Supreme Court said that this is not a situation where one can invoke his right to privacy.
The guarantees listed under the Bill of Rights were intended to protect individuals against government intrusions. It does not apply amongst private individuals.
For example, one may invoke the right to privacy against the police in a search operation but not against another private individual.
In this case, Gino may not properly suppress the evidence presented by Jean’s mother who is also a private individual and not an agent of the State. He was convicted.
***
The Supreme Court also said that Gino could not expect his right to privacy to be protected. He gave his password to another person.
The password would have protected Gino’s privacy. However, the act of passing it to his girlfriend allowed her to provide access to people other than themselves.
Also, it did not matter that Gino did not sell or distribute the pornographic material. It was the intention of Congress to penalize the mere possession of child pornography even for personal use or enjoyment./PN
