View
223
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/12/2019 Spl Ra4200.Rosellemunsayac
1/13
8/12/2019 Spl Ra4200.Rosellemunsayac
2/13
8/12/2019 Spl Ra4200.Rosellemunsayac
3/13
8/12/2019 Spl Ra4200.Rosellemunsayac
4/13
Offenses punishable by the Anti-Wiretapping Law Wiretapping or using any other device or arrangement to secretly overhea
intercept or record a private communication or spoken word, except whesame is done pursuant to a court order and complies with all the conditioimposed by section 3 of R.A. 4200;
Possessing any tape, wire, disc or other record, or copies, of an illegally orecording of a private communication, knowing that it was illegally obtain
Replaying an illegally obtained recording for another person, or communiits contents, or furnishing transcripts of the communication, whether com
partial.
Acts of peace officers (law enforcement agents) in violation of section 3 o4200 on the proper procedure for securing and implementing a court ordauthorizing the wiretapping of a private communication.
The law also makes persons who "wilfully or knowingly aid, permit or cause done the acts described above, equally liable as direct participants to thewiretap or secret recording.
8/12/2019 Spl Ra4200.Rosellemunsayac
5/13
Congress passed the Anti-Wiretapping Law, in
1965.The law seeks to:
. Punish wiretapping and other related violations of the rprivacy of communication.
. It also intends to stop the practice by officers of thegovernment of spying on one anothera "most obnoxinstrument of oppression or arbitrary power.
. The law also declares inadmissible such illegally obtainerecordings in civil, criminal, administrative and legislathearings or investigations.
8/12/2019 Spl Ra4200.Rosellemunsayac
6/13
It shall be unlawful for any person, not beinauthorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken word:
To tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or
arrangement;
To secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communicati
spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictap
or dictagraph or dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recordehowever otherwise described;
To knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc reco
any other such record, or copies, of any communication or sp
word secured either before or after the effective date of this A
the manner prohibited by this law; (be he a participant or n
the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sente
8/12/2019 Spl Ra4200.Rosellemunsayac
7/13
Anti-Wiretapping Law does not prohibit the
recording of all communications.
The law prohibits the recording and interception only private communications.
The law does not prohibit the recording of public speeches by
members of the audience, or other forms of "public"communication such as press conferences, interviews, and bmeetings that are openly recorded. The law expressly punishthose who secretly record or intercept private conversationscommunications. By private conversations and communicatthe law simply refers to communication between persons pr
made.
8/12/2019 Spl Ra4200.Rosellemunsayac
8/13
CASES:
The Supreme Court, in Navarro v. Court of Appeals, distinguished
between private and public communications. In this case, the tape record
captured a heated conversation between a policeman and a reporter whic
led to the violent death of the reporter, and which took place at the police
station in the presence of several people. The Court held that the conversa
was not a private communication, and therefore was admissible in evidenc
the homicide case filed against the policeman for the reporter's death, eve
the policeman did not authorize the recording. "Indeed, Jalbuenastestimo
confirmed by the voice recording he had made. It may be asked whether t
is admissible in view of R.A. No. 4200, which prohibits wire tapping. The anis in the affirmative.
"Thus, the law prohibits the overhearing, intercepting, or recording of priv
communications. Since the exchange between petitioner Navarro and Ling
not private, its tape recording is not prohibited.
8/12/2019 Spl Ra4200.Rosellemunsayac
9/13
In Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, [G.R. No. 93833 (Sept. 28, 1995)]
The Supreme Court disagreed with the petitioner. It stated that Sectio
R.A. 4200 "clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any persoauthorized by all the parties to any private communication to secretly
such communication by means of a tape recorder. The law mak
distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized by the
ought to be a party other than or different from those involved in the
communication. The statute's intent to penalize all persons unauthor
make such recording is underscored by the use of the qualifier
Consequently, .......even a (person) privy to a communication who r
his private conversation with another without the knowledge of the
(will) qualify as a "violator" under this provision of R.A. 4200."
The Supreme Court held further that the nature of the conversatimmaterial to a violation of the statute.
8/12/2019 Spl Ra4200.Rosellemunsayac
10/13
Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, [145 SCRA 112 (1986)],a case
dealt with the issue of telephone wiretapping, the Supreme Court held th
use of a telephone extension for the purpose of overhearing a p
conversation without authorization did not violate R.A. 4200 becatelephone extension devise was neither among those "device(
arrangement(s)" enumerated therein, following the principle that "
statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the accused."
8/12/2019 Spl Ra4200.Rosellemunsayac
11/13
Penalties for violating the Anti-Wire Tapping La
The direct participants to the wiretapping, and any onewho aids, permits or causes the violation are, uponconviction, punished by imprisonment of not less than simonths nor more than six years.
If the offender is a public official at the time of the offenhe shall suffer the accessory penalty of perpetual absoludisqualification from public office.
If the offender is a foreigner, he shall be subject to
deportation.
8/12/2019 Spl Ra4200.Rosellemunsayac
12/13
Does a person who has, listens to, distributes or replays, a copy of
the alleged Gloria-Garci recording violate R.A. 4200?
To violate R.A. 4200, there must first be proof that
(1) an illegal wiretap actually occurred;
(2) that the recording listened to, replayed or distributedemanates from that illegal wiretap; and
(3) that the person who listened to, replayed or distributedthe recording knew (i.e., had personal knowledge) that t
recording was illegally obtained.
8/12/2019 Spl Ra4200.Rosellemunsayac
13/13
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
Prepared by: Munsayac, Rosell
Recommended