Spl Ra4200.Rosellemunsayac

8/12/2019 Spl Ra4200.Rosellemunsayac

1/13


2/13


3/13


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.


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.


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


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.


8/13

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.


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.


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."


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.


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.


13/13

THANK YOU VERY MUCH

Prepared by: Munsayac, Rosell

Documents

Spl Ra4200.Rosellemunsayac