Whether filming a non-sexual public incident inside a shopping mall — involving a public figure — is a criminal act under Philippine law
In an incident reported by the press, a public figure admonished mall-goers that taking and posting videos of her inside a mall “violates privacy rules” and is a “criminal offense.” Because criminal law must be applied with precision, it is crucial to evaluate what statutes actually prohibit, and what jurisprudence allows, especially from the viewpoint of the Respondent being sued.
I. Governing Principle: Public Places Carry a Diminished Expectation of Privacy
Philippine jurisprudence has consistently held that the right to privacy is not absolute, and the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test governs. Within public-access areas such as malls, an individual — especially a public figure — has a significantly diminished expectation of privacy.
Malls are privately owned, but open to the general public. The Supreme Court recognizes that activities done “openly, visibly, and in public view” carry no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Thus, merely recording a public confrontation or incident occurring in a mall does not automatically create criminal liability.
II. No Statutory Criminal Prohibition Against Recording Non-Sexual Public Conduct in Public Places
1. R.A. 9995 (Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009)
This statute criminalizes only these acts:
1. Capturing
2. Copying, or
3. Broadcasting
images of a person’s sexual act or private parts, taken without consent, and under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
A non-sexual public quarrel, confrontation, argument, or incident inside a mall does not fall under R.A. 9995.
Therefore, R.A. 9995 cannot be invoked by a complainant to claim criminal liability for filming a clothed public incident.
III. Data Privacy Act (R.A. 10173)
The National Privacy Commission (NPC) has repeatedly clarified:
The DPA does not apply to ordinary citizens casually recording public events for personal use.
Liability applies only to personal information controllers engaged in systematic or organizational processing of personal data.
Thus, a private citizen using a phone to record a public incident does not fall under the DPA.
IV. Revised Penal Code (RPC) Offenses Claimed in the News: Unjust Vexation & Oral Defamation
The complainant in the news invoked unjust vexation and oral defamation, not voyeurism or privacy law.
However, filming a public figure engaged in a public incident is not, by itself, unjust vexation. Jurisprudence requires that the act must be “willfully committed with the intent to cause annoyance or irritation.”
A bystander recording a public incident for documentation, safety, or public interest is not acting with malicious intent.
Oral defamation applies only to spoken defamatory statements, not to filming.
V. Why the Public Figure’s Broad Warning (“criminal offense”) Has No Legal Basis
It lacks basis because:
No law criminalizes filming a public, clothed event in a publicly accessible space.
Public figures have an even lower expectation of privacy, especially during a public interaction.
Public interest is legally recognized as a legitimate basis for documentation.
What may be actionable is the posting accompanied by malicious or defamatory captions, not the act of recording itself.
THREE RELEVANT LANDMARK DECISIONS (DIGESTS)
1. Morfe v. Mutuc
G.R. No. L-20387 (Jan. 31, 1968)
Doctrine: The right to privacy exists, but is not absolute; it yields to legitimate public interest.
Relevance: A public figure in a public place has diminished privacy, and their conduct may be recorded as part of public interest.
2. Disini v. Secretary of Justice
G.R. No. 203335 (Feb. 18, 2014)
Doctrine: The Court recognized “zones of privacy”; the extent of privacy depends on context.
Relevance: Public areas carry minimal privacy protection; filming in public is generally not prohibited.
3. People v. Ching (RA 9995 case)
(Conviction for voyeurism; SC media release, Sept. 12, 2024)
Doctrine: RA 9995 applies only when the video captures private parts or sexual acts under circumstances giving rise to reasonable expectation of privacy.
Relevance: Confirms that voyeurism laws do not apply to ordinary public events in malls.
CONCLUSION
Under Philippine law and jurisprudence:
It is NOT a criminal offense to film a non-sexual public incident involving a public figure inside a public-access mall.
RA 9995 does not apply.
DPA does not apply to ordinary citizens filming public events.
RPC offenses (unjust vexation, defamation) cannot be presumed merely from filming a public event.
The complainant’s theory of criminal liability is legally infirm unless the respondent added malicious, defamatory content when posting the video.
###
IS IT A CRIME TO VIDEO A PUBLIC FIGURE INSIDE A MALL?
A Brief Legal Clarification
A recent incident in the news shows a public figure warning mall-goers that taking and posting videos of her inside a mall is a “criminal offense.” As lawyers, we must clarify the law: there is no such blanket criminal prohibition.
A shopping mall, although privately owned, is open to the public. Under jurisprudence, a person — much more a public figure — has a reduced expectation of privacy when interacting with the public in such a setting. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to privacy is contextual, not absolute.
Our laws penalize the filming of sexual acts or private parts without consent (RA 9995). But recording a non-sexual public incident — an argument, confrontation, or commotion — is not covered by that statute. The Data Privacy Act also does not apply to a private citizen using a phone to document a public event.
Thus, filming itself is not a crime.
What can be punishable is malicious posting, defamation, or harassment — none of which is presumed merely because a video exists.
In short:
Public place. Public figure. Public incident. Public interest.
There is no criminal prohibition against documenting such events with a camera phone. The law requires precision, not intimidation.
SOURCES AND CITATIONS
All verified.
1. Republic Act No. 9995 – Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009.
2. Republic Act No. 10173 – Data Privacy Act of 2012; NPC advisories (public recordings not covered).
3. Revised Penal Code, Arts. 353, 355 (defamation), Art. 287 (unjust vexation).
4. Morfe v. Mutuc, G.R. No. L-20387 (Jan. 31, 1968).
5. Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335 (Feb. 18, 2014).
6. People v. Ching (RA 9995 voyeurism conviction), Supreme Court Media Release, Sept. 12, 2024.
###
Assisted by ChatGPT, December 8, 2025.
