Atty. Dionaldo

The SC has upheld the validity of a DOJ circular that raised the standard of proof in preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings from probable cause to prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction.

The (SC) 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 has upheld the validity of a Department of Justice (DOJ) circular that raised the standard of proof in preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings from probable cause to prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction.

In a Decision written by written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 ruled that Department Circular No. 15, series of 2024 containing the 2024 𝘋𝘖𝘑-𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘐𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐𝘯𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 (𝘋𝘖𝘑 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴), is a valid exercise of the DOJ’s authority over prosecutorial processes.

Under the DOJ Rules’ new standard of proof in preliminary investigations and inquest, prosecutors must ensure that the evidence to charge a person with a crime must sufficiently establish all the elements and consequently warrant a conviction.

Atty. Hazel L. Meking questioned the DOJ Rules before the SC, claiming that the DOJ encroached on the SC’s constitutional authority to promulgate rules of pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts. She argued that the DOJ Rules effectively revised Rule 112, Section 3(a) of the 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘦, which provides that the quantum of evidence in preliminary investigations is probable cause.

The SC dismissed her petition and reiterated its ruling in 𝘈.𝘔. 𝘕𝘰. 24-02-09-𝘚𝘊, which recognized the DOJ’s authority to promulgate its own rules on preliminary investigations and inquest proceedings.

The SC held that the DOJ Rules govern only the conduct of preliminary investigations and inquests by prosecutors, which are executive functions. These Rules, however, do not extend to judicial proceedings as the power to promulgate rules of procedure over them remains under the authority of the Supreme Court.

The SC noted it had already recognized preliminary investigation as the exclusive domain of prosecutors when it revised the Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2005.

In 2024, through 𝘈.𝘔. 𝘕𝘰. 24-02-09-𝘚𝘊, the SC also ordered the repeal of provisions in Rule 112 which are inconsistent with the DOJ Rules to harmonize them.

The SC’s constitutional rule-making authority over judicial proceedings remains supreme, as well as its power to correct grave abuse of discretion in any prosecutorial rule or action that violates constitutional rights.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161871

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161853

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=161858

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution

“The Supreme Court has ordered a lending app operator to pay damages to a client for accessing her contact list and sending messages about her outstanding loan, actions that harm her reputation.”

SUPREME COURT FINES LENDING APP FOR UNAUTHORIZED CONTACT ACCESS; CRIMINAL PROSECUTION RECOMMENDED

The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered a lending app operator to pay damages to a client for accessing her contact list and sending messages about her outstanding loan, actions that harmed her reputation

In a 16-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, the SC's Third Division reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) that set aside the National Privacy Commission (NPC)’s recommendation to charge FCash Global Lending Inc. with violation of the Data Privacy Act of 2012 and to pay damages to complainant Grace Trimillos.

Court records revealed that Trimillos filed the complaints alleging that the lending app accessed her phone’s contacts list without her authority and sent everyone on the list messages about her loan.

She added this tarnished her reputation, as her co-workers and friends were told they were guarantors and would be forced to pay on her behalf if she did not settle her loan.

Trimillos presented screenshots of the text messages allegedly sent by FCash as evidence. When mediation failed, NPC directed FCash to file a responsive comment, which received no response.

The NPC then resolved the issue and ruled that Trimillo’s right to privacy was violated after it found that FCash gathered personal information in excess of what was necessary and processed it for purposes other than those stated in their own privacy policy.

It held that the unauthorized processing of personal information was done with malice, as the messages reveal FCash’s “unquestionable intention to shame Trimillos and jeopardize her reputation” until she settled her obligations.

The NPC awarded P15,000 in nominal damages to Trimillos and recommended to the Department of Justice the filing of criminal cases against FCash for malicious disclosure and processing of sensitive personal information for unauthorized purposes.

However, when the case was brought to the CA, it abandoned the NPC ruling, noting that Trimillos failed to have the screenshots authenticated by any of her supposed witnesses, violating the Rules on Electronic Evidence. This paved the way for Trimillos to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In ruling in her favor and reinstating the NPC ruling, the high court found FCash failed to timely object to the admissibility of the screenshots used as evidence in the complaint against it before the NPC.

It explained that because FCash raised the issue for the first time on appeal, it could no longer be used as a ground to reverse the NPC’s decision. The issue was deemed waived when the lending app failed to file its response during the proceedings before the NPC.

“While there had been a ground to question its admissibility, it is clear that FCash failed to make a timely objection on the presentation and offer of the screenshots,” the Supreme Court said.

It also cited a previous ruling that inadmissible evidence may be admitted if not challenged at the proper time, and such an issue may not be raised for the first time on appeal.

The highest bench underscored that Trimillos submitted the screenshots to the NPC before the discovery conference. Despite its availability for examination, FCash did not object to these when given an opportunity to comment, including its objection to the inadmissibility of evidence.

“At the risk of being repetitive, grounds for objections not raised at the proper time shall be considered waived. Thus, even on appeal, the CA may not consider any other ground of objection except those that were raised at the proper time,” it added.

“The SC stressed that in criminial cases, the prosecution must not only prove the elements of the crime but also the identity of the offender.”

The has laid down guideposts for proving who owns or controls a social media account in criminal cases.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC’s First Division affirmed the conviction of an individual ( # # #) for committing psychological violence under Section 5 (i) of the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 (𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘝𝘈𝘞𝘊) 𝘈𝘤𝘵 against his ex-girlfriend (AAA) by posting derogatory statements about her on 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬.

The SC sentenced # # # to up to eight years in prison, imposed a PHP 100,000 fine, and ordered # # # to undergo psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.

The SC stressed that in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove not only the elements of the crime but also the identity of the offender.

It explained that for crimes committed through social media, the basic features of the platform such as 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬, must be considered.

Noting that 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 is widely used in the Philippines, the SC held that a 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 account can easily be created by anyone claiming to be at least 13 years old with an email address or mobile number.

Once an account is created, the user can add friends, exchange private messages, and post statements, photos, or videos visible to others depending on the user’s privacy settings. Fake or dummy accounts can easily spread, enabling disinformation, identity theft, or crimes.

Given this, the SC ruled that guideposts are necessary to establish who owns or controls a social media account. It said the following must be shown to prove ownership or access:

1. Admission of ownership or authorship;
2. Being seen accessing the account or composing the post;
3. Containing information known only to the offender or a few people;
4. Language consistent with the offender’s characteristics;
5. Records from the internet service provider, telecommunications company, or social media site, and results from device forensic analysis showing geolocation features, and other attributes linking the account to the offender;
6. Acts consistent with previous posts; or
7. Other instances showing ownership, access, or authorship.

Applying these, the SC found that several factors proved # # # wrote the 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 post. The account name bore his full name, and the profile photo showed him with his child from his current live-in partner.

AAA’s sister had also received messages from the same account for years.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158535.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=158446.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.