Selected Case Law on the Anti-Wire Tapping Law

With all this discussion on the Anti-Wire Tapping Law, I decided to get some of the Supreme Court cases involving the statute. 

Gaanan v. IAC
G.R. No. L-69809, October 16, 1986

Gaanan listens on an extension phone to a conversation and the latter’s affidavit forms part of a charge for extortion.  The accused claims that the affidavit is inadmissible because Gaanan violated RA 4200. 

The Supreme Court ruled that RA4200 could have applied since the conversation was private “in the sense that the words uttered were made between one person and another as distinguished from words between a speaker and a public.”  But since an extension phone is not one of the wire tapping devices contemplated by the law, its use in this case does not violate RA 4200.

Ramirez v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 93833, September 28, 1995

Ramirez files a civil suit for damages against Garcia in relation to a confrontation which occured in the latter’s office.  Ramirez produced verbatim transcript of the conversation as part of her evidence.   The transcript was made based on a tape recording of the conversation made by Ramirez.  Ramirez is charged with violating RA 4200. 

She defends by saying that RA4200 only applies to persons other than the participants to the conversation.  The court disagrees, holding that the law equally applies to all persons who make secret recordings of private conversations.

Salcedo-Ortanez v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 110662, August 4, 1994

The court rules that the consent of both parties to the conversation is necessary in order to render the tape to be admissible.

Navarro v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 121087, August 26, 1999

Navarro, a police officer, assaulted Lingan, a reporter, in the middle of a verbal altercation which was secretly recorded by his companions (also reporters).  Lingan died of his injuries.  Navarro claims that the recording violates RA 4200. The court ruled that the exchange between Lingan and Navarro was not private and therefore RA 4200 does not apply. 

The court did not elaborate why it held the conversation to be public. Lingan had accompanied his fellow media men to report an incident which occured earlier in the evening.  Navarro, after having been told about the incident, entered the station and pointed his gun at one of the reporters in an attempt to stop them from pursuing their complaint.  Lingan intervened, had a heated exchange with Navarro who struck Lingan with his gun.  Navarro then pointed his gun at one of the reporters to sign the police blotter which read that Lingan had invited him to a fight.

Perhaps the Supreme Court felt that the parties to the exchange had not intended their conversation to be private since it was held in a public place, in plain view of other persons who were present and other who, if they so choose, could witness the same. 

————————————

PUBLIC OR PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS? Atty. Paguia is of the view that since the tape recording involves the President and a COMELEC official and the subject matter of the conversation revolves around the elections, then the conversation is public in nature.  It seems to me that the case law does not confirm this novel theory.  In fact, the intention of the parties to the conversation (either express or implied from the circumstances of the communication) determines whether it is private or public.  Therefore, the case law supports the view that the conversations which were allegedly recorded are private in nature.