RULE 128 Inadmissibility of recorded telephone conversations 1. SALCE !"!R#A$E% v. C!UR# !& A''EALS( )R $o.

11*++2 Statement of the &acts, Private respondent Rafael Ortanez filed with the RTC a complaint for annulment of marriage with damages against petitioner Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez, on grounds of lack of marriage license and/or ps chological incapacit of the petitioner! "mong the e#hi$its offered $ private respondent were three cassette tapes of alleged telephone conversations $etween petitioner and unidentified persons! Teresita su$mitted her O$%ection/Comment to Rafael&s oral offer of evidence! 'owever, the trial court admitted all of private respondent&s offered evidence and later on denied her motion for reconsideration, prompting petitioner to file a petition for certiorari with the C" to assail the admission in evidence of the cassette tapes! These tape recordings were made and o$tained when private respondent allowed his friends from the militar to wiretap his home telephone! C" denied the petition $ecause ()* Tape recordings are not inadmissi$le per se! The and an other variant thereof can $e admitted in evidence for certain purposes, depending on how the are presented and offered and on how the trial %udge utilizes them in the interest of truth and fairness and the even handed administration of %ustice+ and (,* " petition for certiorari is notoriousl inappropriate to rectif a supposed error in admitting evidence adduced during trial! The ruling on admissi$ilit is interlocutor + neither does it impinge on %urisdiction! Petitioner then filed the present petition for review! Statement of the Iss-e, -hether the recordings of the telephone conversations are admissi$le in evidence R-lin., .o! These tape recordings were made and o$tained when private respondent allowed his friends from the militar to wire tap his home telephone! R!"! .o! /,00 entitled 1"n "ct to Prohi$it and Penalize -ire Tapping and Other Related 2iolations of the Privac of Communication, and for other purposes3 e#pressl makes such tape recordings inadmissi$le in evidence thus4 Sec! )! 5t shall $e unlawful for an person, not $eing authorized $ all the parties to an private communication or spoken word, to tap an wire or ca$le, or $ using an other device or arrangement, to secretl overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word $ using a device commonl known as a dictaphone or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape-recorder, or however otherwise descri$ed! ! ! Sec! /! "n communication or spoken word, or the e#istence, contents, su$stance, purport, or meaning of the same or an part thereof, or an information therein contained, o$tained or secured $ an person in violation of the preceding sections shall not $e admissi$le in evidence6 "$sent a clear showing that $oth parties to the telephone conversations allowed the recording of the same, the inadmissi$ilit of the su$%ect tapes is mandator under Rep! "ct .o! /,00!

RULE 128 Admissibility of /ire tapped recordin.s in impeachment proceedin.s. 2. &RA$CISC! 0. 1!USE !& RE'.( )R $o. 1+*2+1( 1* $ovember 2**2 Statement of the &acts, On 7ul ,,, ,00,, the 'ouse of Representatives adopted a Resolution, sponsored $ Representative 8eli# -illiam 9! 8uente$ella, which directed the Committee on 7ustice :to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of dis$ursements and e#penditures $ the Chief 7ustice of the Supreme Court of the 7udiciar 9evelopment 8und (798*!: On 7une ,, ,00;, former President 7oseph <! <strada filed an impeachment complaint against Chief 7ustice 'ilario =! 9avide 7r! and seven "ssociate 7ustices of this Court for :culpa$le violation of the Constitution, $etra al of the pu$lic trust and other high crimes!: The complaint was endorsed $ Representatives Role# T! Suplico, Ronaldo >! ?amora and 9idagenPiang9ilangalen, and was referred to the 'ouse Committee! The 'ouse Committee on 7ustice ruled on Octo$er );, ,00; that the first impeachment complaint was :sufficient in form,: $ut voted to dismiss the same on Octo$er ,,, ,00; for $eing insufficient in su$stance! To date, the Committee Report to this effect has not et $een sent to the 'ouse in plenar in accordance with the said Section ;(,* of "rticle @5 of the Constitution! 8our months and three weeks since the filing on 7une ,, ,00; of the first complaint or on Octo$er ,;, ,00;, a da after the 'ouse Committee on 7ustice voted to dismiss it, the second impeachment complaint was filed with the Secretar =eneral of the 'ouse $ Representatives =il$erto C! Teodoro, 7r! and 8eli# -illiam >! 8uente$ella against Chief 7ustice 'ilario =! 9avide, 7r!, founded on the alleged results of the legislative inAuir initiated $ a$ove-mentioned 'ouse Resolution! This second impeachment complaint was accompanied $ a :Resolution of <ndorsement/5mpeachment: signed $ at least onethird ()/;* of all the Bem$ers of the 'ouse of Representatives! Statement of the Iss-e, -hether wire tapped recordings in an impeachment proceedings are admissi$le as evidence R-lin., 5t is clear that %udicial power is not onl a power+ it is also a dut , a dut which cannot $e a$dicated $ the mere specter of this creature called the political Auestion doctrine! Chief 7ustice Concepcion hastened to clarif , however, that Section ), "rticle 2555 was not intended to do awa with :trul political Auestions!: 8rom this clarification it is gathered that there are two species of political Auestions4 ()* :trul political Auestions: and (,* those which :are not trul political Auestions! Trul political Auestions are thus $e ond %udicial review, the reason for respect of the doctrine of separation of powers to $e maintained! On the other hand, $ virtue of Section ), "rticle 2555 of the Constitution, courts can review Auestions which are not trul political in nature!

RULE 128 "s pointed out $ amicus curiae former dean Pacifico "ga$in of the CP College of Daw, this Court has in fact in a num$er of cases taken %urisdiction over Auestions which are not trul political following the effectivit of the present Constitution! 5n Barcos v! Banglapus, this Court, speaking through Badame 7ustice 5rene Cortes, held4 The present Constitution limits resort to the political Auestion doctrine and $roadens the scope of %udicial inAuir into areas which the Court, under previous constitutions, would have normall left to the political departments to decide! 5n >engzon v! Senate >lue Ri$$on Committee, through 7ustice Teodoro Padilla, this Court declared4 The :allocation of constitutional $oundaries: is a task that this Court must perform under the Constitution! Boreover, as held in a recent case, :(t*he political Auestion doctrine neither interposes an o$stacle to %udicial determination of the rival claims! The %urisdiction to delimit constitutional $oundaries has $een given to this Court! 5t cannot a$dicate that o$ligation mandated $ the )EFG Constitution, although said provision $ no means does awa with the applica$ilit of the principle in appropriate cases!: Conc-rrin. and dissentin. opinion of 3-stice '-no, The historiograph of our impeachment provisions will show that the were li$erall lifted from the CS Constitution! 8ollowing an originalist interpretation, there is much to commend to the thought that the are political in nature and character! The political character of impeachment hardl changed in our )E;H, )EG; and )EFG Constitutions! Thus, among the grounds of impeachment are 1other high crimes or $etra al of pu$lic trust!3 The hardl have an %udiciall ascertaina$le content! The power of impeachment is te#tuall committed to Congress, a political $ranch of government! The right to accuse is e#clusivel given to the 'ouse of Representatives! The right to tr and decide is given solel to the Senate and not to the Supreme Court! The Chief 7ustice has a limited part in the process I I Ito preside $ut without the right to vote when the President is under impeachment! Dikewise, the President cannot e#ercise his pardoning power in cases of impeachment! "ll these provisions confirm the inherent nature of impeachment as political! >e that at it ma , the purit of the political nature of impeachment has $een lost! Some legal scholars characterize impeachment proceedings as akin to criminal proceedings! Thus, the point to some of the grounds of impeachment like treason, $ri$er , graft and corruption as well defined criminal offenses! The stress that the impeached official undergoes trial in the Senate sitting as an impeachment court!5f found guilt , the impeached official suffers a penalt 1which shall not $e further than removal from office and disAualification to hold an office under the Repu$lic of the Philippines!3 5 therefore respectfull su$mit that there is now a commi#ture of political and %udicial components in our reengineered concept of impeachment! 5t is for this reason and more that impeachment proceedings are classified as sui generis!

RULE 128 Admissibility of a recorded altercation bet/een the acc-sed and the deceased 2. 'E!'LE 0. $A0ARR!( )R $o. 121*84( 2+ A-.-st 1555 Statement of the &acts, Stanle 7al$uena and <nroAue :5ke: Digan were reporters of a radio station in Ducena Cit ! The two together with Bario 5lagan, went to <ntertainment Cit to follow up on reports that it was showing nude dancers! 7al$uena took a picture of a scantil clad dancer, prompting the floor manager and the securit guard, "le# Sioco, to approach him and demand wh he took a picture! " $rief e#change of words ensued, and as the guard was a$out to pull out a gun, the three left the %oint and proceeded to a police station to report the matter! "t the police station Dingan and Sioco were met $ petitioner .avarro! "n altercation ensued $etween .avarro and Dingan where .avarro hit Dingan in the head using the $utt of his gun! Dingan hit the floor $loodied and as he was a$out to get up, .avarro hit him again with a fist $low! Dingan was $rought to the hospital where he died from his in%uries! Cnknown to .avarro, 7al$uena was a$le to record on tape the e#changed $etween navarro and the deceased! The trial court ruled in favor of the prosecution, which the C" affirmed! Statement of the Iss-e, -hether the recorded altercation is admissi$le as evidence R-lin., Jes! R!"! .o! /,00, which prohi$its wire tapping provides4 Sec! )! 5t shall $e unlawful for an person, not $eing authorized $ all the parties to an private communication or spoken word, to tap an wire or ca$le, or $ using an other device or arrangement, to secretl overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word $ using a device commonl known as dictaphone or dictagraph of dectectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape-recorder, or however otherwise descri$ed4 5t shall also $e unlawful for an person, $e he a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the ne#t preceding sentence, to knowingl possess an tape record, wire record, disc record, or an other such record, or copies thereof, of an communication or spoken word secured either $efore or after the effective date of this "ct in the manner prohi$ited $ this law+ or to repla the same for an other person or persons+ or to communicate the contents thereof, either ver$all or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to an other

RULE 128 person4 Provided, That the use of such record or an copies thereof as evidence in an civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section ; hereof, shall not $e covered $ this prohi$ition! Thus, the law prohi$its the overhearing, intercepting, or recording of private communications! Since the e#change $etween petitioner .avarro and Dingan was not private, its tape recording is not prohi$ited! .or is there an Auestion that it was dul authenticated! " voice recording is authenticated $ the testimon of a witness ()* that he personall recorded the conversations+ (,* that the tape pla ed in the court was the one he recorded+ and (;* that the voices on the tape are those of the persons such are claimed to $elong! 5n the instant case, 7al$uena testified that he personall made the voice recording+ that the tape pla ed in the court was the one he recorded+ and that the speakers on the tape were petitioner .avarro and Dingan! " sufficient foundation was thus laid for the authentication of the tape presented $ the prosecution!

RULE 128 /! )A$AA$ 0 IAC( ).R. $o. +58*5 !ctober 1+( 158+ Statement of the &acts4 Complainant "tt ! Tito Pintor and his client Banuel Bonte$on were in the living room of complainant&s residence discussing the terms for the withdrawal of the complaint for direct assault which the filed with the Office of the Cit 8iscal of Ce$u against Deonardo Daconico! "fter the had decided on the proposed conditions, complainant made a telephone call to Daconico! That same morning, Daconico telephoned appellant, who is a law er, to come to his office and advise him on the settlement of the direct assault case $ecause his regular law er, "tt ! Deon =onzaga, went on a $usiness trip! -hen complainant called up, Daconico reAuested appellant to secretl listen to the telephone conversation through a telephone e#tension so as to hear personall the proposed conditions for the settlement! Twent minutes later, complainant called up again to ask Daconico if he was agreea$le to the conditions! Daconico answered KJes&! Complainant then told Daconico to wait for instructions on where to deliver the mone ! Complainant called up again and instructed Daconico to give the mone to his wife at the office of the then 9epartment of Pu$lic 'ighwa s! Daconico who earlier alerted his friend Colonel ?ulueta of the Criminal 5nvestigation Service of the Philippine Consta$ular , insisted that complainant himself should receive the mone ! -hen he received the mone at the 5gloo Restaurant, complainant was arrested $ agents of the Philippine Consta$ular ! "ppellant e#ecuted on the following da an affidavit stating that he heard complainant demand PF,000!00 for the withdrawal of the case for direct assault! Daconico attached the affidavit of appellant to the complainant for ro$$er /e#tortion which he filed against complainant! Since appellant listened to the telephone conversation without complainant&s consent, complainant charged appellant and Daconico with violation of the "nti--iretapping "ct! The lower court found $oth =aanan and Daconico guilt of violating Section ) of Repu$lic "ct .o! /,00, which prompted petitioner to appeal! The 5"C affirmed with modification hence the present petition for certiorari! Statement of the Iss-e4 -O. an e#tension telephone is covered $ the term 1device or arrangement3 under Rep! "ct .o! /,00 R-lin., $o! The law refers to a 1tap3 of a wire or ca$le or the use of a 1device or arrangement3 for the purpose of secretl overhearing, intercepting, or recording the communication! There must $e either a ph sical interruption through a wiretap or the deli$erate installation of a device or arrangement in order to overhear, intercept, or record the spoken words! "n e#tension telephone cannot $e placed in the same categor as a dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices enumerated in Section ) of R" .o! /,00 as the use thereof cannot $e considered as 1tapping3 the wire or ca$le of a telephone line! The telephone e#tension in this case was not installed for that purpose! 5t %ust happened to $e there for ordinar office use.

RULE 128 Inadmissibility of evidence d-e to infirmity of an arrest 6. 'E!'LE 0S. LA)UI!( ).R. $o. 128684 7arch 1+( 2**4 Statement of the &acts4 Private respondent was walking from the Baria Orosa "partment and was a$out to enter the parked >B- car when the police operatives arrested him! -hen frisked, there was found inside the front right pocket of -ang and confiscated from him an unlicensed guns and sha$u in the car! Statement of the Iss-e4 5s the evidence competentL R-lin.4 .o! There can $e no valid warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto under paragraph (a* of SectionH Rule )); of the Rules on Criminal Procedure! 5t is settled that :relia$le information: alone, a$sent an overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers, is not sufficient to constitute pro$a$le cause that would %ustif an in flagrante delicto arrest! 'ence the warrantless arrest was illegal! 5pso %ure, the warrantless search incidental to the illegal arrest was likewise unlawful! Therefore the evidence o$tained was illegal!