The Anti-Wiretapping Law

Republic Act 4200 is probably the most quoted law

nowadays. Thus, it is worthy to examine the said law
and discuss its pertinent provisions.
Section 1 of R.A. 4200 entitled, An Act to Prohibit and
Penalized Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations of
Private Communication and Other Purposes, provides
that it shall be unlawfull 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
detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or
however otherwise described.
In Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, [G.R. No. 93833 (Sept.
28, 1995)], petitioner Ramirez vigorously argues, that
the applicable provision of Republic Act 4200 does not
apply to the taping of a private conversation by one of
the parties to the conversation. She contends that the
provision merely refers to the unauthorized taping of a
private conversation by a party other than those
involved in the communication. In relation to this,
petitioner avers that the substance or content of the
conversation must be alleged in the Information,
otherwise the facts charged would not constitute a
violation of R.A. 4200. Finally, petitioner agues that R.A.
4200 penalizes the taping of a private
communication, not a private conversation and that
consequently, her act of secretly taping her
conversation with private respondent was not illegal
under the said act.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the petitioner. It
stated that Section 1 of R.A. 4200 clearly and
unequivocally makes it illegal for any person, not
authorized by all the parties to any private
communication to secretly record such communication
by means of a tape recorder. 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. The statutes intent to penalize all
persons unauthorized to make such recording is
underscored by the use of the qualifier any.
Consequently, .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 under this provision of R.A.
4200.
The Supreme Court held further that the nature of the
conversations is immaterial to a violation of the statute.
It held that:
The substance of the same need not be specifically
alleged in the information. What R.A. 4200 penalizes
are the acts of secretly overhearing, intercepting or
recording private communications by means of the
devices enumerated therein. The mere allegation that
an individual made a secret recording of a private
communication by means of a tape recorder would
suffice to constitute an offense under Section 1 of R.A.
4200. As the Solicitor General pointed out in his
COMMENT before the respondent court: Nowhere (in
the said law) is it required that before one can be
regarded as a violator, the nature of the conversation,
as well as its communication to a third person should be
professed.
Curiously, in Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,
[145 SCRA 112 (1986)], a case which dealt with the issue
of telephone wiretapping, the Supreme Court held that
the use of a telephone extension for the purpose of
overhearing a private conversation without
authorization did not violate R.A. 4200 because a
telephone extension devise was neither among those
device(s) or arrangement(s) enumerated therein,
following the principle that penal statutes must be
construed strictly in favor of the accused.
WHEN IS WIRETAPPING ALLOWED?
Under Section 3 of R.A. 4200, a peace officer, who
is authorized by a written order of the Court,
may 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. 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.
INADMISSIBILITY OF WIRETAPPED EVIDENCE
Section 4 of R.A. 4200 declares that 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.