RA 4200

The Anti-wire tapping Law

AN ACT TO PROHIBIT AND PENALIZE WIRE
TAPPING AND OTHER RELATED VIOLATIONS
OF THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Constitutional Basis
Sec. 3, Article 3: Section 3.
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.
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or
the preceding section shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding.

Section 1.It shall be unlawful for any

person, not being authorized 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 communication
or spoken word by using a device
commonly known as a dictaphone or
dictagraph or dictaphone or walkietalkie 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, 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 this law; or to replay the same
for any other person or persons; or to communicate
the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or
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.

ELEMENTS OF SEC.1,
PAR.1
1.
2.

3.

4.

There is a private Communication

Offender willfully or knowingly taps any wire or
cable, or uses device or arrangement for the
purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting or
recording a private conversation communication
or spoken word.
Offender overhears, intercepts, or records the
private commincation without authority from all
the parties thereto.
Offender overhears, intercepts or records private
communication without written authority from a
competent court as required by Sec.3, RA 4200.

1. There is a private
Communication
includes private conversations. In its ordinary
signification, communication connotes the act of
sharing or imparting, as in conversation, or
signifies the process by which meanings or
thoughts are shared between individuals through
common system or symbols such as language signs
or gestures. These definitions are broad enough to
include verbal or non-verbal, written or expressive
communications of meanings or thoughts. The law
only includes private communication and not
public, thus recording of the proceedings in the
Lupong Tigapamayapa is not violative of RA 4200.

Navarro vs CA

Enrique Lingan and Stanley Jalbuena, both radio reporters

went to a police station to report for a blotter. During the
course, a heated argument arose between police officer
Navarro and the two reporters. Navarro then poked his
cocked firearm on the face of Jalbuena. Lingan interfered,
this then irked Navarro and then and there hit Lingan with
the handle of his pistol above the left eyebrow. This
caused Lingan to fall on the floorbloodied.Lingan died.
However, unknown to Navarro, Jalbuena was able to record
the heated convo. Here, the Court held that the
overhearing, intercepting, or recording of private
communications. Since the exchange between petitioner
and deceased was not private, its tape recording is not
prohibited and admissible in evidence.

2. Offender willfully or knowingly

taps any wire or cable, or uses device
or arrangement for the purpose of
secretly overhearing, intercepting or
recording a private conversation
communication or spoken word.

There has to either be aphysical

interruption through wiretap or the
deliberate installation of a device or
arrangement in order to overhear,
intercept or record the spoken words.

Device or arrangement

Device or arrangement although not exclusive to

that enumerated therein, should be construed to
comprehend instruments, which are the same as or
similar to Dictaphone, dictagraph, detectaphone,
walkie-talkie, and tape recorder, that is instruments
the use of which would be tantamount to tapping
the main line of a telephone. It refers to instruments
whose installation or presence cannot be presumed
by the party or parties being overheard because by
their very nature, they are not of common usage
and their purpose is precisely for tapping,
intercepting or recording a telephone conversation.

Gaanan vs Iac
The law refers to a "tap" of a wire or cable or the use of a "device or
arrangement" for the purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting,
or recording the communication. There must be either a physical
interruption through a wiretap or thedeliberateinstallation of a
device or arrangement in order to overhear, intercept, or record the
spoken words.
An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a
dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices enumerated in Section 1
of RA No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered as "tapping"
the wire or cable of a telephone line. The telephone extension in this
case was not installed for that purpose. It just happened to be there
for ordinary office use. It is a rule in statutory construction that in
order to determine the true intent of the legislature, the particular
clauses and phrases of the statute should not be taken as detached
and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part thereof must
be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts.
(NOTE: the framers of the law were more concerned with penalizing
the act of recording than that of merely listening to a phone convo.)

Extension telephone
An extension telephone is an instrument which is very common
especially now when the extended unit does not have to be
connected by wire to the main telephone but can be moved from
place ' to place within a radius of a kilometer or more. A person
should safely presume that the party he is calling at the other end
of the line probably has an extension telephone and he runs the
risk of a third party listening as in the case of a partyline or a
telephone unitwhich shares its line with another. An extension
telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone,
dictagraph or the other devices enumerated in Section 1 of RA No.
4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered as "tapping" the
wire or cable of a telephone line. The telephone extension in this
case was not installed for that purpose. It just happened to be
there for ordinary office use. It is a rule in statutory construction
that in order to determine the true intent of the legislature, the
particular clauses and phrases of the statute should not be taken
as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every
part thereof must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its
parts.

Nature of Conversation

immaterial

3. Offender overhears, intercepts, or

records the private commincation without
authority from all the parties thereto.

Third Party
the party who secretly recorded private
communication of 2 persons, is liable for
wiretapping.

Salcedo-Ortanez vs CA
wife requested his military friend to
wiretap the conversations of his wife.
Such recording was used as evidence in
an annulment case. The Court held that
the tapes were inadmissible, and that the
private respondent violated RA 4200
because the other party did notallow the
recording.

Party to the
conversation
RA 4200 makes no distinction as to
whether the offender must be a person
other than those involved in the private
communication.

Ramirez vs CA
Ramirez vs CA Offender recorded her confrontation with the
defendant. The law makes no distinction as to whether the offender
myst be a person other than those involved in the private
communication. The statute's intent to penalize all persons
unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the use of
the qualifier "any". Consequently, as respondent Court of Appeals
correctly concluded, "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" 13under this
provision of R.A. 4200.
A perusal of the Senate Congressional Records, moreover, supports
the respondent court's conclusion that in enacting R.A. 4200 our
lawmakers indeed contemplated to make illegal, unauthorized tape
recording of private conversations or communications taken either
by the parties themselves or by third persons.

4. Offender overhears,
intercepts or records
private communication
without written
authority from a
competent court as
required by Sec.3, RA
4200

Section 2.Any person who willfully or

knowingly does or who shall aid, permit, or
cause to be done any of the acts declared to be
unlawful in the preceding section or who
violates the provisions of the following section
or of any order issued thereunder, or aids,
permits, or causes such violation shall, upon
conviction
thereof,
be
punished
by
imprisonment for not less than six months or
more than six years and with the accessory
penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification
from public office if the offender be a public
official at the time of the commission of the
offense, and, if the offender is an alien he shall
be subject to deportation proceedings.

Acts Punished by RA
4200

1.

Secretly overhearing, intercepting or recording private

communications by means of devices enumerated
therein.

2.

knowingly possessing any tape record, wire record,

disc record or any other such record or copies thereof,
of any communication or spoken word taken in the
manner prohibited in the law;

3.

replaying the same for any other person;

4.

communicating the contents verbally or in writing; or

5.

furnishing transcriptions thereof, complete or partial.

Section 3.Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall

render it unlawful or punishable for any peace officer,
who is authorized by a written order of the Court, to
execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the
two preceding sections in cases involving the crimes of
treason, espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in case
of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion,
conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to
rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition,
inciting to sedition, kidnapping as defined by the
Revised Penal Code, and violations of Commonwealth
Act No. 616, punishing espionage and other offenses
against national security:Provided, That such written
order shall only be issued or granted upon written
application and the examination under oath or
affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may
produce and 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:Provided,
however, That in cases involving the offenses of 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;

(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 of
such crimes; and

(3) that there are no other means readily available for

obtaining such evidence.

The order granted or issued shall specify:

(1) 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;
(2) the identity of the peace officer authorized to overhear,
intercept, or record the communications, conversations,
discussions, or spoken words;
(3) the offense or offenses committed or sought to be prevented;
and
(4) the period of the authorization. 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.

All recordings made under court authorization shall, within

forty-eight hours after the expiration of the period fixed in
the order, be deposited with the court in a sealed envelope
or sealed package, and shall be accompanied by an
affidavit of the peace officer granted such authority stating
the number of recordings made, the dates and times
covered by each recording, the number of tapes, discs, or
records included in the deposit, and certifying that no
duplicates or copies of the whole or any part thereof have
been made, or if made, that all such duplicates or copies
are included in the envelope or package deposited with
the court. The envelope or package so deposited shall not
be opened, or the recordings replayed, or used in
evidence, or their contents revealed, except upon order of
the court, which shall not be granted except upon motion,
with due notice and opportunity to be heard to the person
or persons whose conversation or communications have
been recorded.

The court referred to in this section 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.

Note: Terrorism is not one of those crimes

mentioned in Sec. 3 of RA 4200. However, under Sec.
7 of RA 9372, the CA may authorize the surveillance,
interception and recording of communication
between members of terrorist organization or of any
person charged with or suspected of the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
The prohibition on surveillance, interception and
recording of communications between lawyers and
clients, doctors and patients, journalists and their
sources and business correspondence is recognition
of confidential character of such communication.

Section 4.Any communication 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.

Salcedo-Ortanez vs CA If all the parties

did not consent to the recording, such
recording is inadmissible in evidence.

What must be proven to sustain a

charge of wiretapping or using any
other device or arrangement to
secretly overhear, intercept or
record a private communication?

What must be proven to sustain a

charge of possessing a tape, wire,
disc or other record, or copies of an
illegally obtained recording of a
private communication?

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 distributed emanates from that
illegal wiretap; and (3) that the person who listened to,
replayed or distributed the recording knew (i.e., had
personal knowledge) that the recording was illegally
obtained.

A third partys claim that the recording was wiretapped is

not enough to constitute a violation of R.A. 4200, since
that is hearsay.

Can the media be prohibited from

airing voice recordings that are
allegedly illegally obtained?

In what kinds of proceedings are

illegally obtained recordings of
private communications
inadmissible?

How about impeachment?