On
Article 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) shall be imposed upon any private individual who in order to discover the secrets of another, shall seize his papers or letters and reveal the contents thereof.

If the offender shall not reveal such secrets, the penalty shall be arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000).

This provision shall not be applicable to parents, guardians, or persons entrusted with the custody of minors with respect to the papers or letters of the children or minors placed under their care or custody, nor to spouses with respect to the papers or letters of either of them.

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a private individual or even a public officer not in the exercise of his official function;
2. That he seizes the papers or letters of another;
3. That the purpose is to discover the secrets of such another person; and
4. That offender is informed of the contents or the papers or letters seized.


This article is not applicable to parents with respect to their minor children or to spouses with respect to the papers or letters of either of them.

Contents of the correspondence need not be secret. The purpose of the offender prevails.

Qualifying circumstance: When the offender reveals the contents of such papers or letters to a 3rd person.

This article does not require that the offended party be prejudiced.

This is a crime against the security of one’s papers and effects. The purpose must be to discover its effects. The act violates the privacy of communication.

According to Ortega, it is not necessary that the offender should actually discover the contents of the letter. Reyes, citing People v. Singh, CA, 40 OG, Suppl. 5, 35, believes otherwise.

The last paragraph of Article 290 expressly makes the provision of the first and second paragraphs thereof inapplicable to parents, guardians, or persons entrusted with the custody of minors placed
under their care or custody, and to the spouses with respect to the papers or letters of either of them. The teachers or other persons entrusted with the care and education of minors are included in the exceptions.

Distinction from estafa, damage to property, and unjust vexation:

- If the act had been executed with the intent of gain, it would be estafa;

- If, on the other hand, the purpose was not to defraud, but only to cause damage to another’s, it would merit the qualification of damage to property;
 
- If the intention was merely to cause vexation, preventing another from doing something which the law does not prohibit or compel him to execute what he does not want, the act should be considered as unjust vexation.