MANILA, Philippines — A hidden camera allegedly planted inside a bathroom used by female workers at a staff house in Malate, Manila was discovered after one woman noticed what appeared to be an ordinary pen near the toilet while she was taking a bath.
But investigators did not have to look far for a clue to whoever allegedly installed it.
According to GMA News, the device had apparently recorded the man believed to have placed the camera as he was setting it up—effectively capturing evidence that helped his co-workers identify him.
The incident has again raised concerns over hidden-camera voyeurism and privacy violations in shared accommodations and workplaces, where increasingly small recording devices can be disguised as everyday objects.
Woman spots suspicious “pen” inside bathroom
The hidden device was discovered inside the bathroom of a staff house in Malate, according to the report.
An administrator of the staff house said one female employee was already bathing when she noticed a pen-shaped object wedged near the side of the toilet.
Instead of ignoring it, the workers inspected the object and discovered that it contained a memory card.
When they opened the files on a computer, they allegedly found recordings showing two female co-workers while they were bathing, GMA reported.
The discovery immediately turned the suspicious object into potential evidence of a serious privacy violation.
Suspect allegedly recorded himself setting up camera
The biggest break reportedly came from the camera itself.
When the employees reviewed the footage, they allegedly saw a male co-worker installing and positioning the spy camera inside the bathroom.
The staff-house administrator said the discovery came as a shock because they had not previously noticed behavior that made them suspicious of him.
The man had reportedly been working with them for around eight months.
Authorities were subsequently contacted, and police arrested the suspect. GMA reported that he underwent inquest proceedings on Wednesday and remained in the custody of the Malate Police Station as of the report.
Separate coverage by ABS-CBN News on August 26 also reported the arrest of a man accused of setting up a spy camera for voyeuristic purposes in Malate, Manila.
Police checking whether videos were meant for online sale
Investigators are now looking beyond the recordings already discovered.
Police said they were trying to determine what the suspect allegedly intended to do with the videos—including whether the material could have been sold or distributed online.
According to GMA, the suspect reportedly told authorities that the recordings were intended only for his personal consumption. Police, however, continued investigating the possibility of wider distribution.
That distinction could become important as investigators examine the device, memory card and any other digital evidence.
Republic Act No. 9995 does not only prohibit secretly capturing images of a person’s private areas under circumstances where that person reasonably expects privacy. The law also prohibits unauthorized copying, reproduction, sale, distribution, publication or broadcast of covered recordings.
Suspect faces complaint under Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act
Police said the suspect was being proceeded against under the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009.
A clarification is important: the correct law is Republic Act No. 9995. The GMA report quoted a police officer referring to “RA 9905,” but official Philippine legislative records identify the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act as RA 9995, approved on February 15, 2010.
Under Section 4 of RA 9995, it is unlawful to photograph or record a person’s private areas without consent when that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
A bathroom is precisely the type of setting contemplated by the law’s privacy provisions. The Supreme Court has cited RA 9995’s definition of a reasonable expectation of privacy as circumstances in which a person could reasonably expect to disrobe without being secretly photographed or recorded.
A person convicted of violating Section 4 may face three to seven years in prison and a fine ranging from ₱100,000 to ₱500,000, or both, at the court’s discretion.
The suspect in the Malate case has not been reported as convicted, and the allegations remain subject to investigation and court proceedings.
Hidden-camera cases remain a recurring privacy concern
The Malate incident is not an isolated example of alleged secret filming inside bathrooms.
In July 2026, a 39-year-old warehouseman in Pasig City was arrested after a female co-tenant allegedly spotted a cellphone protruding through an opening in a bathroom ceiling while she was bathing. The device was seized for forensic examination, and authorities pursued a complaint under RA 9995.
In another workplace case reported by The Philippine Star, a man was arrested in Mandaluyong after a female employee found a small camera hidden beneath a women’s restroom sink. Authorities similarly cited the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act.
These cases underline how ordinary-looking objects and increasingly compact cameras can be used to violate privacy in places where people should reasonably expect to be safe from surveillance.
For the workers in Malate, however, the alleged scheme appears to have unraveled because of one crucial mistake: the hidden camera reportedly recorded the person who was setting it up.
And that footage may ultimately become one of the most important pieces of evidence in the case.
Leave a Reply