REPUBLIC ACT NO.

4200

AN ACT TO PROHIBIT AND PENALIZE WIRE TAPPING AND OTHER RELATED

VIOLATIONS OF THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES

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 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, 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 Sec. 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition.

Sec. 2. Any person who wilfully or knowingly does or who shall aid, permit, or cause to
be done any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the preceding Sec. or who violates
the provisions of the following Sec. 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. chan robles virtual law library

Sec. 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 Sec.s 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 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. chan robles virtual law library

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.

Sec. 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 Sec.s of this
Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or
administrative hearing or investigation.

Sec. 5. All laws inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or
accordingly amended. chan robles virtual law library

Sec. 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved: June 19, 1965

 Evidence
Cases on Anti Wire Tapping Law

1. Gaanan v IAC
FACTS:
 In the morning of October 22, 1975, complainant Atty. Tito Pintor and his client Manuel Montebon were
in the living room of complainant’s residence discussing the terms for the withdrawal of the complaint
for direct assault which they filed with the Office of the City Fiscal of Cebu against Leonardo Laconico
 After they had decided on the proposed conditions, complainant made a telephone call to Laconico
 When complainant called up, Laconico requested appellant to secretly listen to the telephone
conversation through a telephone extension so as to hear personally the proposed conditions for the
settlement
 Laconico attached the affidavit of appellant to the complainant for robbery/extortion which he filed
against complainant
 Since appellant listened to the telephone conversation without complainant’s consent, complainant
charged appellant and Laconico with violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Act
 RTC found both petitioners guilty. CA affirmed. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: WON AN EXTENSION TELEPHONE IS AMONG THE PROHIBITED DEVICES IN SECTION 1 OF THE ACT, SUCH
THAT ITS USE TO OVERHEAR A PRIVATE CONVERSATION WOULD CONSTITUTE UNLAWFUL INTERCEPTION OF
COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES USING A TELEPHONE LINE

RULING:
 NO. 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 the deliberate installation 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.
 Hence, the phrase "device or arrangement" in Section 1 of RA No. 4200, although not exclusive to that
enumerated therein, should be construed to comprehend instruments of the same or similar nature,
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
 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 party line or a telephone unit which shares its line with another.
 Furthermore, it is a general rule that penal statutes must be construed strictly 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.
 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.
2. Ramirez v. CA (1995)

FACTS:
 A civil case for damages was filed by petitioner Socorro D. Ramirez in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City alleging that the private respondent, Ester S. Garcia, in a confrontation in the latter’s office, allegedly
vexed, insulted and humiliated her in a “hostile and furious mood” and in a manner offensive to
petitioner’s dignity and personality, “contrary to morals, good customs and public policy.”
 In support of her claim, petitioner produced a verbatim transcript of the event
 The transcript on which the civil case was based was culled from a tape recording of the confrontation
made by petitioner.
 As a result of petitioner’s recording of the event and alleging that the said act of secretly taping the
confrontation was illegal, private respondent filed a criminal case before the RTC for violation of Republic
Act 4200, entitled “An Act to prohibit and penalize wire tapping and other related violations of private
communication, and other purposes.”
 RTC dismissed R.A. 4200. CA reversed. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: DOES RA 4200 APPLY TO THE TAPING OF A PRIVATE CONVERSATION BY ONE OF THE PARTIES TO THE
CONVERSATION?

RULING:
 YES
 Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the law is applied according to its express
terms, and interpretation would be resorted to only where a literal interpretation would be either
impossible or absurd or would lead to an injustice.
 The provision 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, 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” under this provision of R.A. 4200
 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

Sub-Issue no. 2:
WON “private communication” in RA 4200 include “private conversation”

Ruling:
 YES
 The word communicate comes from the latin word communicare, meaning “to share or to impart.”
 In its ordinary signification, communication connotes the act of sharing or imparting, as in a
conversation, or signifies the “process by which meanings or thoughts are shared between individuals
through a common system of symbols (as language signs or gestures)”
 These definitions are broad enough to include verbal or non-verbal, written or expressive
communications of “meanings or thoughts” which are likely to include the emotionally-charged
exchange, on February 22, 1988, between petitioner and private respondent, in the privacy of the latter’s
office.
 Any doubts about the legislative body’s meaning of the phrase “private communication” are,
furthermore, put to rest by the fact that the terms conversation and communication were
interchangeably used by Senator Tanada in his Explanatory Note to the bill
3. NAVARRO vs CA, August 26, 1999

FACTS:

 After the bar incident. Lingan and other appellants went to the police station where they met 3
policemen including petitioner Navarro.
 As Lingan was about turn away, petitioner Navarro hit him with the handle of the pistol above the left
eyebrow. Lingan fell on the floor, blood flowing down his face. He tried to get up, but petitioner
Navarro gave him a fist blow on the forehead which floored him.
o Petitioner Navarro turned to Jalbuena and said: "Kita mo yan ha, buhay kang testigo, si Ike Lingan
and naghamon."
o He said to Sgt. Añonuevo: "Ilagay mo diyan sa blotter sa harap ni Alex Sioco at Dante Liquin, na
si Ike Lingan ang naghamon."
o He then poked his gun at the right temple of Jalbuena and made him sign his name on the
blotter. Jalbuena could not affix his signature. His right hand was trembling and he simply wrote
his name in print.
 Lingan had been taken to the hospital. But Lingan died from his injuries.
 Unknown to petitioner policeman Navarro, Jalbuena was able to record on tape the exchange
between petitioner and the deceased.
 RTC found Navarro guilty. CA affirmed. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE TAPE IS ADMISSIBLE IN VIEW OF R.A. NO. 4200.

RULING:

 YES
 In the instant case, petitioner Navarro has not shown that the trial court erred in according weight to
the testimony of Jalbuena. Indeed, Jalbuena's testimony is confirmed by the voice recording had made.
 It may be asked whether the tape is admissible in view of R.A. No. 4200, which prohibits wire tapping.
The answer is in the affirmative.
 The law provides:
Sec. 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 dictaphone or dictagraph of dectectaphone 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.
Sec. 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.

 Thus, 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.
 Nor is there any question that it was duly authenticated.
 A voice recording is authenticated by the testimony of a witness

(1) that he personally recorded the conversations;

(2) that the tape played in the court was the one he recorded; and
 (3) that the voices on the tape are those of the persons such are claimed to belong.30 In the instant case,
Jalbuena testified that he personally made the voice recording; that the tape played in the court was the
one he recorded; and that the speakers on the tape were petitioner Navarro and Lingan.
 A sufficient foundation was thus laid for the authentication of the tape presented by the prosecution.

4. Chavez vs. Gonzales (2008)

FACTS:

 Sometime before 6 June 2005, the radio station dzMM aired the Garci Tapes where the parties to the
conversation discussed "rigging" the results of the 2004 elections to favor President Arroyo. On 6 June
2005, Presidential spokesperson Ignacio Bunye (Bunye) held a press conference in Malacañang Palace,
where he played before the presidential press corps two compact disc recordings of conversations
between a woman and a man. Bunye identified the woman in both recordings as President Arroyo but
claimed that the contents of the second compact disc had been "spliced" to make it appear that
President Arroyo was talking to Garcillano.
 However, on 9 June 2005, Bunye backtracked and stated that the woman's voice in the compact discs
was not President Arroyo’s after all. Meanwhile, other individuals went public, claiming possession of
the genuine copy of the Garci Tapes. Respondent Gonzalez ordered the National Bureau of
Investigation to investigate media organizations which aired the Garci Tapes for possible violation of
Republic Act No. 4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping Law.
 On 11 June 2005, the NTC issued a press release warning radio and television stations that airing the
Garci Tapes is a "cause for the suspension, revocation and/or cancellation of the licenses or
authorizations" issued to them. On 14 June 2005, NTC officers met with officers of the broadcasters
group, Kapisanan ng mga Broadcasters sa Pilipinas (KBP), to dispel fears of censorship. The NTC and
KBP issued a joint press statement expressing commitment to press freedom.
 On 21 June 2005, petitioner Francisco I. Chavez (petitioner), as citizen, filed this petition to nullify the
"acts, issuances, and orders" of the NTC and respondent Gonzalez (respondents) on the following
grounds: (1) respondents’ conduct violated freedom of expression and the right of the people to
information on matters of public concern under Section 7, Article III of the Constitution, and (2) the
NTC acted ultra vires when it warned radio and television stations against airing the Garci Tapes.

ISSUE: WON the Garci Tapes are protected expression such that it cannot be subject to prior restraint? Or
does it not contain false or misleading statements?

RULING: Yes.

 Section 4, Article III of the Constitution prohibits the enactment of any law curtailing freedom of
expression:
 No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or the press, or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
 Thus, the rule is that expression is not subject to any prior restraint or censorship because the
Constitution commands that freedom of expression shall not be abridged. Over time, however, courts
have carved out narrow and well defined exceptions to this rule out of necessity.
 The exceptions, when expression may be subject to prior restraint, apply in this jurisdiction to only four
categories of expression, namely: Pornography, False or misleading advertisement, Advocacy of
imminent lawless action, and Danger to national security. All other expression is not subject to prior
restraint.

 The public airing of the Garci Tapes is a protected expression because it does not fall under any of the
four existing categories of unprotected expression recognized in this jurisdiction. The airing of the Garci
Tapes is essentially a political expression because it exposes that a presidential candidate had allegedly
improper conversations with a COMELEC Commissioner right after the close of voting in the last
presidential elections.
 Obviously, the content of the Garci Tapes affects gravely the sanctity of the ballot. Public discussion on
the sanctity of the ballot is indisputably a protected expression that cannot be subject to prior
restraint. Public discussion on the credibility of the electoral process is one of the highest political
 expressions of any electorate, and thus deserves the utmost protection. If ever there is a hierarchy of
protected expressions, political expression would occupy the highest rank,38 and among different
kinds of political expression, the subject of fair and honest elections would be at the top. In any event,
public discussion on all political issues should always remain uninhibited, robust and wide open.
 The rule, which recognizes no exception, is that there can be no content-based prior restraint on
protected expression. On this ground alone, the NTC press release is unconstitutional.
 The present case involves a prior restraint on protected expression. Prior restraint on protected
expression differs significantly from subsequent punishment of protected expression. While there can
be no prior restraint on protected expression, there can be subsequent punishment for protected
expression under libel, tort or other laws. In the present case, the NTC action seeks prior restraint on the
airing of the Garci Tapes, not punishment of personnel of radio and television stations for actual violation
of the Anti-Wiretapping Law.
 In the present case, the airing of the Garci Tapes is a protected expression that can never be subject
to prior restraint. However, even assuming for the sake of argument that the airing of the Garci
Tapes constitutes unprotected expression, only the courts have the power to adjudicate on the
factual and legal issue of whether the airing of the Garci Tapes presents a clear and present danger
of bringing about a substantive evil that the State has a right and duty to prevent, so as to justify the
prior restraint.
 Any order imposing prior restraint on unprotected expression requires prior adjudication by the courts
on whether the prior restraint is constitutional. This is a necessary consequence from the presumption
of invalidity of any prior restraint on unprotected expression. Unless ruled by the courts as a valid prior
restraint, government agencies cannot implement outright such prior restraint because such restraint
is presumed unconstitutional at inception.

Notes:

 Prior restraint refers to official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in
advance of actual publication or dissemination

5. Capuchino vs. Apolonio (2011)

FACTS:
 8 personnel were charged with Grave Misconduct and Violation of the Anti-Wire Tapping Act (Republic
Act No. 4200) in two identical complaints.
 Atty. Capuchino claimed that his and his client’s conversations with Aspiras, Apolonio and Taguba were
recorded by Apolonio, with the assistance of the other court personnel, without his and his client’s
knowledge, in violation of the Anti-Wire Tapping Act. He further claimed that all the respondents
conspired with each other to illegally record their conversations.

ISSUE: ACT OF RESPONDENTS TAGUBA, ASPIRAS, APOLONIO AND SANTIAGO OF SURREPTITIOUSLY TAPING
THEIR CONVERSATIONS WITH ATTY. CAPUCHINO AND VALENCIA, WITHOUT THE LATTER’S KNOWLEDGE AND
CONSENT, CONSTITUTES MISCONDUCT AND/OR CONDUCT UNBECOMING OF A COURT EMPLOYEE.

RULING:

 Yes. Their concerted acts – of leading Atty. Capuchino and Valencia into the court sala, engaging them
in conversation regarding the money deposited with Duque, taping their conversation without
Capuchino’s & Valencia’s knowledge, and later using the taped conversation as basis of the complaint
they filed against Duque – constitute misconduct. Santiago’s claim that she forgot who borrowed her
tape recorder and for what purpose it was borrowed is not credible.

6. Atty. Dela Fuente Torres v Atty. Dalangin (2017)

FACTS:

 complaint for gross immorality, malpractice and gross misconduct filed against Atty. Dalangin by the
following complainants: (1) Atty. Torres; (2) Felicidad O. Samatra (Samatra); (3) Alvaro; (4) Mary DF.
Noveras (Noveras); and (5) Generosa S. Camacho (Camacho).
  The complaint imputed upon Atty. Dalangin several breaches of his duties as a lawyer. First, it was alleged
that Atty. Dalangin filed against employees of the Judiciary and a fellow lawyer groundless suits, which
were merely prompted by his loss in a case and intended to cover up his negligence as counsel. By his
acts, Atty. Dalangin committed gross misconduct, and breached Rule 18.03, Canon 18, Rules 1.02 and
1.03, Canon 1, and Canon 11 of the CPR.3
 In CBD Case No. 12-3369,21 Atty. Dalangin sought the disbarment of Atty. Torres and Atty. Andres for
gross misconduct, violation of the lawyer's oath, and breach of Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1 of the CPR.
He claimed that both lawyers conspired with their clients in filing CBD Case No. 11-3215, even as they
violated Republic Act (R.A.) No. 4200, otherwise known as the Anti-Wiretapping Act.
 Submitted to support CBD Case No. 11-3215 was Nonilo Alejo’s (Alejo) affidavit, which contained a
transcript of a recorded telephone conversation between Alejo and one Wilma Pineda (Pineda). The
recording was without the prior knowledge and consent of Pineda.
 As a backgrounder, Atty. Dalangin was accused in CBD Case No. 11- 3215 of fabricating testimonies
against Noveras, who was claimed to be a vital witness in a criminal case against Pascual. In an affidavit
drafted by Atty. Dalangin for Pineda, the latter complained of Noveras and Alejo’s failure to return in full
the cash bond that she posted in a case for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law, even after the case
had been dismissed by the trial court. This allegation was negated in the disputed transcript, as Pineda
allegedly confirmed receiving the full ₱8,000.00, but decided to give half thereof to Alejo for a "blow-
out" after her case’s dismissal.
 Both Atty. Andres and Atty. Torres disputed the complaint. Atty. Andres asserted that CBD Case No. 12-
3369 was filed only to harass and intimidate him, being the counsel of the complainants in CBD Case No.
11- 3215.25 By way of defense, he adopted a counter-affidavit which he submitted in a separate
complaint for violation of R.A. No. 4200 that was filed by Atty. Dalangin with the City Prosecutor of Pasig
City. Atty. Andres therein argued that on the basis of Atty. Dalangin’s allegations, the case should have
been filed by Pineda against Alejo, being the purported victim and the one who recorded the
conversation, respectively.

ISSUE: WON the case of R.A. 4200 will prosper against Atty. Andres and Torres?

RULING: No.

 In this case, Atty. Dalangin claimed that Atty. Torres and Atty. Andres conspired with Alejo on the
wrongful recording of a private communication with Pineda, along with the use of the transcript thereof
to support Alejo’s affidavit in CBD Case No. 11-3215. However, Pineda's own denial of the truth of the
statements in the transcription lends doubt as to the allegation of a purported secret recording of an
actual conversation. While Pineda denied knowledge that her telephone conversation with Alejo was
recorded by the latter, she still refused to acknowledge the veracity of the assertions that she allegedly
made as contained in the transcript, which then appears to be a rejection of the supposed conversation.
 Given the circumstances, the IBP correctly ruled that Atty. Dalangin failed to substantiate the charges in
his complaint against Atty. Torres and Atty. Andres.