Saturday, June 11, 2005
This day in history from:

Classes Resume! Republic Act No. 4200

Ok class! Let's resume our blog-lecture. Let us leave libel for a moment to discuss wire tapping.

Section 1 of Republic Act No. 4200, otherwise known as the "Anti-Wire Tapping Act," states:

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 dectaphone 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, 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.


First, please bear in mind that this law is mala prohibita, meaning, criminal or malicious intent need not be proven by the prosecution. The mere act of wire-tapping, even with the purest of intentions is already punishable under RA 4200, as amended.

What constitutes wire-tapping? or What are its requisites?

  1. Any person secretly overhears, intercepts or records any private communication or spoken word (in layman's terms "eavesdropping"),
  2. He does so by tapping wires or cables, by using any other device as stated in the law, and
  3. He does so without the consent of all the parties to such private communication or spoken word.
Also please bear in mind that Republic Act No. 4200, as amended punishes:

  1. The act of wire tapping itself,
  2. Possession of taped, wire, disc or any other form of record of such wire tapped communications
  3. Communication about the contents thereof either verbally or in writing,
  4. Funishing transcripts thereof to any other person whether such is partial or total.
At this point, I will tow the popular legal theory about this law.

This is a private crime, meaning, at least one of the private parties to this communication or conversation must file the case against the persons liable under this act.

Only if it is unauthorized by all the parties to such private communication or spoken word can the record or transcript thereof be considered wire tapped material. Hence, the Department of Justice cannot motu propio file this case in court.

Also, nobody can effect a warrantless arrest for violation thereof because there will be no instance when anybody can be caught in flagrante delicto (or "in the act"), insofar as the violations other than the actual act of eavesdropping is concerned.

This is likewise bourne out of the deliberations when this law was being passed, as quoted by the Supreme Court in Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals (GR No. 93833, 28 September 1995). During such deliberations, the late Senator Tañada stated, "This is a complete ban on tape recorded conversations taken without the authorization of all the parties." [Emphasis supplied.]

How does this apply to "Gloriagate"?

In my opinion, insofar as the President's conversation is concerned, nobody can be prosecuted under Republic Act No. 4200. No less than the Presidential Spokesman, suppossedly the mouthpiece and alter ego of the President, admitted and even distributed copies of the same.

This already constitutes tacit or implicit authorization by at least one the alleged parties to that private communication. At the very least, one party is estopped from saying he/she did not consent to such wire tapped record. With the other party denying he is the other voice there, there will be no complainant to initiate prosecution for violation of this law.

With this argument, I believe "reasonable doubt" already exists to acquit anyone if prosecuted for violating this act.

Assuming that it was not the President or the Comelec Commissioner, there will be difficulties again in prosecuting such violation by such private parties, since they would be, in effect, likewise admitting to even graver criminal acts that the Comelec and the Justice Department has the power to initiate motu propio (or on their own).

On a practical level therefore, there will be no complainants to this violation since nobody will admit to being any one of the voices in this record. Since there will be no complainants, there will be no successful prosecution.

Oh, and by the way, this is a probationable offense since this is not a crime against national security, as stated in the Revised Penal Code.

2 Objection(s):

At 7:52 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

OK.
But if PGMA or Garci admit that the voices are theirs, only that the recordings are tampered or altered, then they can file the case against whoever had it whom they did not give any authorization, is that right?

 
At 8:39 PM, Blogger Punzi said...

Yes. But there lies the rub.

To admit it is to admit criminal acts. Burden on proof shifts to them to prove that the tape is not altered because the one they file a case against will surely file a countercharge for violation of election law or perhaps impeachment.

In short (of course this is the practical approach), they would probably not do it. But who are we to predict what will happen?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Disaster relief, sustainable development & community service


Featured PinoyBlog of the Week

Side Prayers

PRAYER FOR GENEROSITY
Lord Jesus,
Teach me to be generous,
Teach me to serve You as You deserve
To give and not to count the cost,
To fight and not to heed the wounds,
To toil and not to seek for rest,
To labor and not to ask for reward,
except that of knowing
That I do Your Holy Will. Amen

THE LAWYER'S PRAYER
May every word I speak be from Your Truth...
I ask come from Your Wisdom...
May every case I handle receive Your Guidance...
May every heart, every life I touch, feel Your Love.

THE JABEZ PRAYER
And Jabez called on the God of Israel saying,
"Oh, that You would bless me indeed,
and enlarge my territory,
that Your Hand be with me,
that You would keep me from evil,
that I may not cause pain."

So God granted him what he requested.

Side Oath

The Lawyer's Oath
I do solemnly swear that
I will maintain allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines,
I will support its Constitution
and obey the laws as well as
the legal orders of the
duly constituted authorities therein;
I will do no falsehood,
nor consent to the doing of any in court;
I will not wittingly or willingly
promote or sue any groundless,
false or unlawful suit,
nor give aid nor consent to the same;
I will delay no man for money or malice,
and will conduct myself as a lawyer
according to the best of my knowledge
and discretion with all good fidelity
as well to the courts as to my clients;
and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation
without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion.
So help me God.

Side Chatter

Add me to Skype

Noel Punzi Eustaquio Punzalan's Facebook profile

Tagontheside

Blog Lectures

Side Blog Roll

Blogroll Me!

Shameless Sideplugs

Powered by Blogger





A Pinoy Blogger

Get Firefox!











Bored Single Bloggers Club



My blog is worth $35,566.02.
How much is your blog worth?

<a href="http://www.bloginspace.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.bloginspace.com/_assets/img/badges/bloginspace_145x100.gif" width="145" height="100" border="0" alt="BlogInSpace.com"></a>

 

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

Technorati search

eXTReMe Tracker

Enter your Email


Powered by FeedBlitz

Get Firefox!

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

in/out sider(s) online
Casino

Mesothelioma Lawsuit
mesothelioma

Who Links Here