SECTION 3 Privacy Of Communication and Correspondence- Philippines Constitution CASE DOCTRINES
(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.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this and the preceding section shall be inadmissible for anypurpose in any proceeding.
A. Exclusionary Rule (Second paragraph of Section 3)
People v. Marti – package bound for Switzerland – The Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against act of private individuals. It is directed against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. The constitutional against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by a private individual.
B. Waiver of Rights
Veroy v. Layague – search of rebels in a house – Permission was granted by Veroy to enter the house but only to ascertain the presence of rebel soldiers. Where permission to enter a residence was given,
it is illegal to search the rooms therein and seize firearms without as search warrant.
Okabe v. Gutierrez – estafa case – An application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant issued therefore.. An application for bail SHALL NOT BE considered as a waiver of rights. A valid waiver, requisites. 1) rights must exist; 2) there must be clear and convincing proof that there was an actual intention to relinquish the right
C. Anti-Wire Tapping Act
Navarro v. CA – police complaint gone bad – where the exchange between two persons is not private, the tape recording is not prohibited
Salcedo-Ordonez v. CA – annulment with damages – husband is cheating on me case – Unauthorized tape recordings of telephone conversations not admissible
D. Privacy of Bank Accounts
Marquez v. Desierto – secrecy of bank deposits – exceptions: 1) depositor consents in writing; 2) subject of an impeachment case; 3) by court order in cases of bribery and dereliction by public officials, 4) deposit is subject of litigation; 5) unexplained wealth
E. Privacy of Communication
Roxas v. Zuzuaregui – contempt of the Supreme Court – the letter ceased to be private when Roxas furnished the letter to the all the justices and not just to the one whom it is addressed