Dear PAO ADULTERY ON LINE

Dear PAO,
I discovered that my wife has been committing adultery. I found out about the affair on
Facebook. Are e-mails and messages of her and the guy on Facebook stand as evidence in court?
Will the court recognize it? Will it be a strong evidence to convict them?
Joseph Dear Joseph,
Adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not
her husband and by the man who has carnal knowledge of her, knowing her to be married, even
if the marriage be subsequently declared void. ( Article 333, Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines)
By the definition itself, the evidence needed to prosecute and convict your wife and her alleged
paramour is one that would show that indeed they engaged in sexual intercourse. It must also
establish that her paramour knew that she is married. Exchanging messages through electronic
mail and online/internet or electronic messaging, expressing their passion towards each other is
not sufficient to conclude that they had carnal knowledge. If the same is admissible in court, it
will only substantiate the fact that something is going on between them.
However, according to a Supreme Court Administrative Matter, electronic evidence shall only
apply to all civil actions and proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases
(Section 2, Administrative Matter 01-7-01-SC RE: Rules on Electronic Evidence). Therefore,
electronic evidence such as electronic mail, online/internet messaging and the like are not
admissible in court in criminal cases. This was pronounced by the Supreme Court in the recent
case of Rustan Ang v Court of Appeals ( G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010), to wit:
“Besides, the rules he cites do not apply to the present criminal action. The Rules on Electronic
Evidence applies only to civil actions, quasijudicial proceedings, and administrative
proceedings.”
( http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_182835_2010.html)
Nonetheless, the exception to this rule, perhaps, would be the provision of Republic Act 9995 or
the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009, wherein it prohibited the publication of
obscene photos and videos in electronic form on the internet and other media. It is possible that
evidence of uploaded photos and videos may be presented in court to prosecute and convict
violators of the said law.
If there is truth to what you have discovered on the internet, perhaps the best thing to do is to
gather evidence that would stand in court. This may be in the form of testimonies of witnesses,
who have personal knowledge or first hand information about the alleged illicit affair of your
wife and her paramour as well as the details evidenc- ing the act of sexual intercourse between
them and documentary evidence that would show the same, among others. Please be reminded
however that it is basic that adultery is very hard to prove since the sexual act is being committed
in private and beyond the knowledge of everyone unless the couple is living under one conjugal
dwelling purposely as husband and wife. Second, the quantum of evidence that is needed to
come up with a conviction is proof beyond reasonable doubt ( Section 2, Rule 133, Revised
Rules of Court of the Philippines). Hence, mere suspicion is not tantamount to guilt.
Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have
narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or
elaborated.
We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter. Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily
column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to
[email protected] or via tex
On Aug. 1, 2001, the Rules on Electronic Evidence (REE) went into effect.
The REE applies whenever a piece of electronic data message or electronic evidence is offered or used as
evidence.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Electronic data message” refers to information generated, sent, received or stored by electronic,
optical or similar means.
“Electronic document” refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures, symbols
or other modes of written expression, described or however represented, by which a right is established
or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received,
recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically.
Electronic documents include digitally signed documents and any printout or output, readable by sight
or other means, which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document.
For purposes of the REE, electronic document is the same as electronic data message.
Some examples of electronic data message or electronic evidence are files in computer hard drives and
diskettes, computer printouts, text messages (SMS), Facebook chats, multimedia messages (MMS) and
CCTV footage.
Read more: https://business.inquirer.net/175246/is-electronic-evidence-admissible-in-criminal-

cases#ixzz5gLcG1ty4
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
n layman’s terms, the Facebook post in question should be treated as a paper-based document. The
legal question is how to prove or authenticate this Facebook post as evidence in a court of law.
RULE 5
AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS
SECTION 1. Burden of proving authenticity. – The person seeking to introduce an electronic document in
any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in the manner provided in this Rule.
SEC. 2. Manner of authentication. – Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is
received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the following means:
(a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the same;
(b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by the
Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic documents were applied to the document; or
(c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge.
The SC upheld the lower court’s ruling denying the admissibility of the computer print-out, stressing that
it is unclear from the document itself who encoded the information and who printed out the document.
Apart from the manual signature, there were other notations on the document that were also
countersigned by another person. [G.R. NO. 164273 : March 28, 2007 Aznar v. Citibank

Dear PAO ADULTERY ON LINE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dear PAO ADULTERY ON LINE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dear PAO ADULTERY ON LINE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dear PAO,

Read more: https://business.inquirer.net/175246/is-electronic-evidence-admissible-in-criminal-

Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS

You might also like