Molina - Crim Report Ra 4200 Anti-Wiretapping

RA 4200
The Anti-Wiretapping Act (1965)

UP Law | Criminal Law II Report
Submitted to: Prof. Olaso-Coronel Submitted by: Maritoni B. Molina I-B
WHAT IS RA 4200?
 Congress passed the Anti-Wiretapping Law, R.A. 4200, in
1965.
 RA 4200 punishes wiretapping, the use of any other

device or arrangement to secretly overhear, intercept, or
record a private communication or spoken word, and
possession and replaying, communicating and furnishing
of transcripts of the contents of the same.
 Exception:
Where the prohibited acts are done pursuant to a court
order and in compliance with all the other conditions
provided in Section 3 of RA 4200.
WHY WAS IT ENACTED?
 The law seeks to punish wiretapping and other
related violations of the right to privacy of
communication.
 It
also intends to stop the practice by officers of the
government of spying on one another—a "most
obnoxious instrument of oppression or arbitrary
power."
 The law also declares inadmissible such illegally

obtained recordings in civil, criminal, administrative
and legislative hearings or investigations.
Source: http://pcij.org/blog/wp-docs/FAQs-Anti-Wiretapping-Law.pdf
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS
 SEC. 3, ART. III
(1) The privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
lawful order of the court, or when public safety or
order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the

preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.
SECTION I: ACTS PUNISHED
It shall be unlawful for any person, not being
authorized by all parties to any private
communication or spoken word:
(1) to tap any wire or cable, or

(2) by using any other device or arrangement,
to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such

communication or spoken word by using a device
commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or
detectaphone or walkie talkie or tape recorder, or
however otherwise described
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a
participant or not in the act or acts penalized in
the next preceding sentence:
(3) to knowingly possess any tape record, wire

record, disc record, or any other such record or
copies thereof, of any communication or spoken
word secured either before or after the effective date
of this Act in the manner prohibited by law.
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a
participant or not in the act or acts penalized in
the next preceding sentence:
(4) to replay the same for any other person or

persons; or
(5) to communicate the contents thereof, either

verbally or in writing; or
(6) to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether

complete or partial, to any other person
 Provided, that the use of such record or any copies

thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation
or trial of offenses mentioned in section 3 hereof
shall not be covered by this prohibition.
SECTION I: ACTS PUNISHED | Elaboration
It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all
parties to any private communication or spoken word:
“Any person”
 Ramirez v. CA , G.R. No. 93833, September 28,
1995:
- The law makes no distinction as to whether the party

sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a
party other than or different from those involved in
the private communication
“Any person”
1995:
- The statute's intent to penalize all persons

unauthorized to make such recording is underscored
by the use of the qualifier "any".
“Any person”
1995:
- Even a (person) privy to a communication who

records his private conversation with another without
the knowledge of the latter (will) qualify as a violator
13 under this provision of R.A. 4200.
“Private communication”
 Any communication made under circumstances
creating a reasonable expectation of privacy.
(http://www.messagenetcommunicationsystems.com/public-vs-private-communication-
systems/)
 By private conversations and communications, the

law simply refers to communication between persons
privately made.
(http://pcij.org/blog/wp-docs/FAQs-Anti-Wiretapping-Law.pdf)
 A statements made in a public meeting is not a
private communication. (People v. Jaring)
 "It
said that a heated exchange between two persons
in the presence of a third who recorded secretly the
exchange was not private in nature and therefore
even if secretly recorded was admissible in
evidence." (Navarro v. Court of Appeals)
 Public communication, though recorded without
authorization of the parties, may be admissible in
evidence.
(http://pcij.org/blog/wp-docs/FAQs-Anti-Wiretapping-Law.pdf)
(1) to tap any wire or cable,
Tap, vb.:
 to connect into secretly so as to revive the message
or signal being transmitted
“There must be a physical interruption through a

wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or
arrangement in order to overhear, intercept, or
record spoken words.” (Gaanan v. IAC, 1986)
(2) by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly
overhear, intercept, or record such communication or
spoken word by using a device commonly known as a
dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie talkie or
tape recorder, or however otherwise described
“There must be a physical interruption through a

wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or
arrangement in order to overhear, intercept, or
record spoken words.” (Gaanan v. IAC, 1986)
“Any other device or arrangement”

- The phrase "any other device or arrangement" does
not cover an extension line. (Gaanan v. IAC, G.R.
No. L-69809, October 16, 1986)
“Secretly overhear”
- The word "secretly" only qualifies "overhear." When
communication is intercepted or recorded, the
element of secrecy would not appear to be material.
(Congression Record, Vol. III, No. 31, p. 584, March
12, 1964)
a. dictaphone
- A dictation machine
- A sound recording device most commonly used to
record speech for later playback or to be typed into
print
b. dictagraph
- A telephonic instrument for secretly monitoring or
recording conversations by means of a small,
sensitive and often concealed microphone
c. detectaphone
- A telephonic apparatus with an attached microphone
transmitter used especially for listening secretly
(1) to tap any wire or cable, or
(2) by using any other device or arrangement,
… to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
communication or spoken word by using a device commonly
known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or
walkie talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described
“Consequently, the mere act of listening, in order to

be punishable must strictly be with the use of the
enumerated devices in RA No. 4200 or others of
similar nature.” (Gaanan v. IAC, 1986)
 Sustaining
a charge under the first two
punishable acts:
(a) The prosecution must prove that a wiretap or

other device was actually used to secretly
overhear, intercept or record a private
communication without a court order
 Sustaining
a charge under the first two
punishable acts:
(b) The issue of whether or not the prosecution has the

burden of proving that a recording/wiretapped
communication was not authorized by all the parties
is an open question.
Senate deliberations: absence of authority by all the parties

to the communication was a matter of defense
Jurisprudence: the prosecution has the burden of proving a
negative essential element
(3) to knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc
record, or any other such record or copies thereof, of any
communication or spoken word secured either before or after
the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by law.
“Knowingly possess”
- The word knowingly refers to “knowing that [the
recording] was secured by illegal means."
 Sustaining a charge under the third punishable
act:
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt

(a) that an illegal wiretap actually took place;
(b) that the recording in the possession of the accused
emanates from that illegal wiretap ;
(c) that the accused knew, i.e., had personal
knowledge, that the recording was obtained illegally.
(4) to replay the same for any other person or persons; or
(5) to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in
writing; or
(6) to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or
partial, to any other person
 Sustaining a charge under the aforementioned:

The prosecution must prove that the accused acted
with personal knowledge that the recording was
illegally obtained
SECTION 2: PENALTY
 IMPRISONMENT OF 6 MONTHS TO 6 YEARS for
a) direct participants to the wiretapping
b) any one who aids, permits or causes to be done

any of the acts in Section 1
SECTION 2: PENALTY
 IMPRISONMENT OF 6 MONTHS TO 6 YEARS for
c) any one who violates the provisions of Section 3,

on the procedure for securing and implementing a
court order authorizing the wiretapping of a private
communication, or of any order issued thereunder
d) anyone who aids, permits or causes such

violation of Section 3
SECTION 2: PENALTY
 With the accessory penalty of:
PERPETUAL ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION from

public office for
- offender who is a public official at the time of the
commission of the offense
Subjection to DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS

- offender who is an alien
SECTION 2: PENALTY
 Who may sue:
.
 Any person whose private communication has been

tapped, intercepted, recorded, obtained, replayed,
communicate or transcribed without his consent
under the punishable means may initiate prosecution
under RA 4200.
.
 Identityof the parties in the private communication

must therefore be established or admitted prior to
such action.
.
 Ratio: Privacy is is a personal right.

SECTION 3: EXCEPTIONS | Crimes
 Anyof the acts declared unlawful and punishable in
Sections 1 and 2 shall not be considered as such
when a peace officer is authorized by a 1) written
order from the court 2) in cases involving the
following:
a) crimes of treason,
b) espionage,
c) provoking war and disloyalty in case of war,
d) piracy and mutiny in the high seas,
e) rebellion,
following:
f) conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion,

g) inciting to rebellion,
h) sedition,
i) conspiracy to commit sedition,
j) inciting to sedition,
following:
k) kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code,

and
l) violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing
espionage and other offenses against national
security.
SECTION 3: EXCEPTION | Court Order
 A.
Such written order shall only be issued or
granted upon :
 1. written application
 2.
examination under oath or affirmation of the
applicant and the witnesses he may produce and
 A.
granted upon :
 3. a showing:
 (1)that there are REASONABLE GROUNDS to

believe that any of the crimes enumerated
hereinabove has been committed or is being
committed or is about to be committed:
 A. Such written order shall only be issued or
granted upon :
 3. a showing:
 Exception:
Cases involving rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to
commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to sedition
Such authority shall be granted only upon PRIOR PROOF

that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case may be,
have actually been or are being committed;
 A.
granted upon :
 3. a showing:
 (2)that there are REASONABLE GROUNDS to

believe that evidence will be obtained essential to
the conviction of any person for, or to the
solution of, or to the prevention of, any such
crimes; and
 B. Content |The order granted or issued shall
specify:
 1. Persons communicating; where specific devices are

involved
 The identity of the person or persons whose
communications, conversations, discussions, or spoken
words are to be overheard, intercepted, or recorded and,
 in the case of telegraphic or telephonic
communications, the telegraph line or the telephone
number involved and its location;
specify:
 2. Authorized persons
 The identity of the peace officer authorized to
overhear, intercept, or record the communications,
conversations, discussions, or spoken words;
 3. Object
 The offense or offenses committed or sought to be
prevented; and

specify:
 4. Period of the authorization, fixed period, exceptions

and extensions
 The authorization shall be effective for the period
specified in the order which shall not exceed sixty (60)
days from the date of issuance of the order, unless
extended or renewed by the court upon being satisfied
that such extension or renewal is in the public interest.

SECTION 3: EXCEPTION | Info Gathered
 A. Deposit with the court
1. Shall be deposited with the court in a sealed

envelope or sealed package
2. Deposit shall be made within forty-eight hours after

the expiration fixed in the order
3. Deposit shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the

peace officer grater authority
Contents of the affidavit:

 a. number of recordings made
 b. dates and times covered by each recording
 c. number of tapes, discs, or records included in the
deposit
3. Deposit shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the

peace officer grater authority
Contents of the affidavit:

 d. certification that no duplicates or copies of the
whole or any part thereof have been made
 e. or if made, that all such duplicates or copies are
included in the envelope or package deposited with
the court
 B. Opening of the contents
 1.
The envelope or package so deposited shall not
be (a) opened, or (b) the recordings replayed, or (c)
used in evidence, or (d) their contents revealed
 2.
Except upon order of the court, which shall not be
granted except (a) upon motion, (b) with due notice
and opportunity to be heard to the person or persons
whose conversation or communications have been
recorded.
SECTION 3: EXCEPTION
 Proper Court
The court referred to in this Sec. shall be understood
to mean the Court of First Instance within whose
territorial jurisdiction the acts for which authority is
applied for are to be executed.
SECTION 4: INADMISSIBILITY IN EVIDENCE
 Anycommunication or spoken word, or the

existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or
meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any
information therein contained obtained or secured by
any person in violation of the preceding Sections of
this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any
judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or
administrative hearing or investigation.
 NOTE: “There appears to be no legal bar to the
admissibility of wiretapped recordings in
impeachment proceedings.”
 Expressiounios est eclusio alterius:

- “The express mention of one thing is the exclusion of
another”
 Subject to rules of Congress
 ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE UNDER RA 4200:
 Navarro v. CA (1999)
- The Supreme Court requires that a voice recording is
authenticated by the testimony of a witness
- (1) that he personally recorded the conversation
- (2) that the tape played in the court was the one he
recorded
- (3) that the voices on the tape are those of the
persons such are claimed to belong
SECTION 5:
 All
laws inconsistent with the provisions of this Act
are hereby repealed or accordingly amended.
SECTION 6:
 This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

JURISPRUDENCE
 GAANAN v. CA (1986)
Facts:
As ordered by his client, appellant lawyer used an
extension line of a telephone to listen to the former’s
conversation with the complainant as they were talking
over the telephone about an out-of-court settlement.
The same was unknown to the complainant.
Ruling: No violation of RA 4200

JURISPRUDENCE
Ratio:
1) The court excluded the extension telephone from the
class of devices enumerated on the following grounds:
 There is no "tapping" involved in the use thereof
 Their primary purpose is not for tapping, intercepting, or
recording a telephone conversation
 Their presence can be presumed, thus the reduced
expectation of privacy
JURISPRUDENCE
Ratio:
2) Penal statutes must be construed in favor of the
accused.
 Thus, in case of doubt as in the case at bar, on whether
or not an extension telephone is included in the phrase
"device or arrangement", the penal statute must be
construed as not including an extension telephone.
JURISPRUDENCE
Ratio:
3) Legislative intent:
 explicit exclusion of the extension telephone
 greater concern for the act of recording than for the act of
listening
JURISPRUDENCE
Ratio:
3) Legislative intent:
 Consequently, the mere act of listening, in order to be
punishable must strictly be with the use of the
enumerated devices in RA No. 4200 or others of
similar nature. We are of the view that an extension
telephone is not among such devices or arrangements.
JURISPRUDENCE
 RAMIREZ v. CA (1995)
Facts:
In a civil case instituted by the petitioner against
respondent, the former produced a transcript
culled from a tape recording of the confrontation
between the two as evidence of the injurious
language used by the respondent on the petitioner.
The same was unknown to the respondent.
Ruling: Petitioner got convicted under RA 4200

JURISPRUDENCE
Ratio:
1) The law makes no distinction as to whether the
party sought to be penalized by the statute ought to
be a party other than or different from those involved
in the private communication
2)The statute's intent to penalize all persons
unauthorized to make such recording is underscored
by the use of the qualifier "any".


JURISPRUDENCE
Ratio:
3) "Even a (person) privy to a communication who
records his private conversation with another without
the knowledge of the latter (will) qualify as a violator"
13 under this provision of R.A. 4200.
JURISPRUDENCE
 NAVARRO v. CA (1999)
Facts:
Unknown to petitioner Navarro, Jalbuena (friend of the
deceased) was able to record on tape the exchange
between petitioner and the deceased before the
former caused the latter’s death.
Issue: Whether the tape is admissible in view of R.A.
No. 4200, which prohibits wire tapping.
Ruling: No violation of RA 4200; recording admissible
JURISPRUDENCE
 NAVARRO v. CA (1999)
Ratio:
The law prohibits the overhearing, intercepting, or
recording of private communications. Since the
exchange between petitioner Navarro and Lingan
was not private, its tape recording is not prohibited.
HOW TO DETERMINE IF ACT IS
PUNISHABLE UNDER RA 4200:
Public NOT PUNISHABLE;

ADMISSIBLE In compliance NOT PUNISHABLE;
with Section 3?
ADMISSIBLE
Y
Nature of the In violation of PUNISHABLE;
Section 3? INADMISSIBLE
Communication Authorized by
court order?
N
Private
PUNISHABLE, INADMISSIBLE:
N IF ACTS MUST FALL UNDER SECTION 1
Authorized by all
parties?
Y NOT PUNISHABLE;
ADMISSIBLE
SOURCES
 Diokno,J. (2005). FAQs on the Anti-Wiretapping Law
and Related Issues. Retrieved from: http://pcij.org/
blog/wp-docs/FAQs-Anti-Wiretapping-
Law.pdfREveised
 Reyes,
L. (2012). Annotations: The Revised Penal
Code Book II.
 Online: http://www.chanrobles.com
THANK YOU.

Molina - Crim Report Ra 4200 Anti-Wiretapping

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Molina - Crim Report Ra 4200 Anti-Wiretapping

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

RA 4200

The Anti-Wiretapping Act (1965)

 RA 4200 punishes wiretapping, the use of any other

 The law also declares inadmissible such illegally

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the

(1) to tap any wire or cable, or

to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such

(3) to knowingly possess any tape record, wire

(4) to replay the same for any other person or

(5) to communicate the contents thereof, either

(6) to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether

 Provided, that the use of such record or any copies

- The law makes no distinction as to whether the party

- The statute's intent to penalize all persons

- Even a (person) privy to a communication who

 By private conversations and communications, the

“There must be a physical interruption through a

“There must be a physical interruption through a

“Any other device or arrangement”

“Consequently, the mere act of listening, in order to

(a) The prosecution must prove that a wiretap or

(b) The issue of whether or not the prosecution has the

Senate deliberations: absence of authority by all the parties

The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt

 Sustaining a charge under the aforementioned:

a) direct participants to the wiretapping

b) any one who aids, permits or causes to be done

c) any one who violates the provisions of Section 3,

d) anyone who aids, permits or causes such

PERPETUAL ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION from

Subjection to DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS

 Any person whose private communication has been

 Identityof the parties in the private communication

 Ratio: Privacy is is a personal right.

f) conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion,

k) kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code,

 (1)that there are REASONABLE GROUNDS to

Such authority shall be granted only upon PRIOR PROOF

 (2)that there are REASONABLE GROUNDS to

 1. Persons communicating; where specific devices are

 4. Period of the authorization, fixed period, exceptions

1. Shall be deposited with the court in a sealed

2. Deposit shall be made within forty-eight hours after

3. Deposit shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the

Contents of the affidavit:

3. Deposit shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the

Contents of the affidavit:

 Anycommunication or spoken word, or the

 Expressiounios est eclusio alterius:

 Subject to rules of Congress

 This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

The same was unknown to the complainant.

Ruling: No violation of RA 4200

Ruling: Petitioner got convicted under RA 4200

Public NOT PUNISHABLE;

Potrebbero piacerti anche