BILL OF RIGHTS (Art.

III, 1987 Constitution)

PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE; EXCLUSIONARY RULE;

INFORMATIONAL, DECISIONAL, LOCATIONAL PRIVACY
* Exceptions under the Anti-Wire Tapping Law
Q: A has a telephone line with an extension. One day, A was talking to B
over the telephone. A conspired with his friend C, who was at the end of
the extension line listening to A's telephone conversation with B to
overhear and tape-record the conversation wherein B confidentially
admitted that with evident premeditation, he
(B) killed D for having cheated him in their business partnership. B was
not aware that the telephone conversation was being tape- recorded. In
the criminal case against B for murder, is the tape-recorded
conversation containing his admission admissible in evidence?
A: NO. R.A. No. 4200 expressly makes such tape recordings
inadmissible in evidence. The relevant provisions of R.A No. 4200 are as
follows:

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 a Dictaphone or dictagraph or
detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape-recorder, or however otherwise
described.

Sec. 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents,

substance, purport, 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 v. CA, G.R. No. 110662, 4
Aug. 1994)

NOTE: R.A. No. 4200 makes the tape-recording of a telephone

conversation done without the authorization of all the parties to the
conversation, inadmissible in evidence. In addition, the taping of the
conversation violated the guarantee of privacy of communications
enunciated in Sec. 3, Article III of the Constitution. (Sec. 4, R.A. No.
4200)
Q: Ester S. Garcia, in a confrontation with Socorro Ramirez, allegedly
vexed, insulted, and humiliated Ramirez in a "hostile and furious mood"
and in a manner offensive to Ramirez’s dignity and personality. Ramirez
then filed a civil case for damages against Garcia. In support of her
claim, Ramirez 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.

As a result of Ramirez’s recording of the event, Garcia filed a criminal

case for violation of R.A. No. 4200, alleging that the act of secretly
taping the confrontation was illegal. Ramirez contends that the facts
charged do not constitute an offense. Was there a violation of R.A. No.
4200?
A: YES. The law is unambiguous in seeking to penalize even those
privies to the private communications. Where the law makes no
distinctions, one does not distinguish.

The nature of the conversations is immaterial to a violation of the

statute. The substance of the same need not be specifically alleged in
the information. 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 Sec. 1 of R.A. No. 4200.

The phrase private communication in Sec. 1 of R.A. No. 4200 is 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 between petitioner and private
respondent, in the privacy of the latter's office. (Ramirez v. CA, G.R. No.
93833, 28 Sept. 1995)
Q: In a criminal prosecution for murder, the prosecution presented, as
witness, an employee of the Manila Hotel who produced in court a
videotape recording showing the heated exchange between the
accused and the victim that took place at the lobby of the hotel barely
30 minutes before the killing.
The accused objects to the admission of the videotape recording on the
ground that it was taken without his knowledge or consent, in violation
of his right to privacy and the Anti- Wire Tapping law. Resolve the
objection with reasons. (2010 BAR)
A: OVERRULED. What the law prohibits is the overhearing, intercepting,
and recording of private communications. Since the exchange of
heated words was not private, its videotape recording is not prohibited
(Navarro v. CA, G.R. No. 121087, 26 Aug. 1999)
Q: Are letters of a husband’s paramour kept inside the husband’s
drawer, presented by the wife in the proceeding for legal separation,
admissible in evidence?
 A: NO. The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one
of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in
ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity.

A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his

right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever
available to him or to her. (Zulueta v. CA, G.R. No. 107383, Feb. 20,
1996)
* The Right to Privacy is Not Absolute
Q: The CSC Chairperson Karina Constantino- David received a letter-
complaint which said that an employee of the CSC was a lawyer of an
accused government employee having a pending case in the said
agency. Acting on the matter, she ordered the backing up of all files in
the computers found in the Public Assistance and Liaison Division
(PALD) of which Briccio Pollo was the Officer-in-Charge. Drafts of legal
pleadings were found in Pollo’s computer. Thereafter, he was charged
with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service and Violation of R.A. No. 6713. On his part, Pollo
attacks the backing up of his files as it was done without his knowledge
and consent, thus infringing on his constitutional right to privacy. Is he
correct?
 A: NO. Public employers have an interest in ensuring that their agencies
operate in an effective and efficient manner, and the work of these
agencies inevitably suffers from the inefficiency, incompetence,
mismanagement, or other work- related misfeasance of its employees.

Indeed, in many cases, public employees are entrusted with

tremendous responsibility, and the consequences of their misconduct
or incompetence to both the agency and the public interest can be
severe. In contrast to law enforcement officials, therefore, public
employers are not enforcers of the criminal law. Instead, public
employers have a direct and overriding interest in ensuring that the
work of the agency is conducted in a proper and efficient manner.

A probable cause requirement for searches of the type at issue here

would impose intolerable burdens on public employers. The delay in
correcting the employee misconduct caused by the need for probable
cause rather than reasonable suspicion will be translated into tangible
and often irreparable damage to the agency's work, and ultimately to
the public interest.

Besides, Pollo failed to prove that he had an actual (subjective)

expectation of privacy either in his office or government-issued
computer which contained his personal files. He did not allege that he
had a separate enclosed office which he did not share with anyone, or
that his office was always locked and not open to other employees or
visitors. Neither did he allege that he used passwords or adopted any
means to prevent other employees from accessing his computer files.
(Pollo v. Constantino-David, G.R. No. 181881, 18 Oct. 2011)
* Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Test

Q: Sps. Hing were owner of a parcel of land and Aldo Inc. constructed
an auto-repair shop building on the adjacent lot. Aldo filed a case for
injunction and damages claiming that the Sps. Hing were constructing a
fence without valid permit and that the construction would destroy their
building. The case was dismissed for failure of Aldo to substantiate its
allegations. Aldo Inc. then installed two cameras on their building
facing the property of the Sps. Hing. The spouses contend that the
installation of the cameras was an invasion of their privacy. Is there a
limitation on the installation of surveillance cameras?
A: YES. In this day and age, video surveillance cameras are installed
practically everywhere for the protection and safety of everyone. The
installation of these cameras, however, should not cover places where
there is reasonable expectation of privacy, unless the consent of the
individual, whose right to privacy would be affected, was obtained. Nor
should these cameras be used to pry into the privacy of another’s
residence or business office as it would be no different from
eavesdropping, which is a crime under R.A. No. 4200 or the Anti-
Wiretapping Law. (Sps. Hing v. Choachuy, G.R. No. 179736, 26 June
2013)

Q: DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzales warned that reporters who had copies
of the compact disc (CD) and those broadcasting or publishing its
contents could be held liable under the Anti- Wiretapping Act. Secretary
Gonzales also ordered the NBI to go after media organizations “found to
have caused the spread, the playing and the printing of the contents of
a tape” of an alleged wiretapped conversation involving the President
about fixing votes in 2004 national elections. Can the DOJ Secretary use
the Anti- Wiretapping act as a regulatory measure to prohibit the media
from publishing the contents of the CD?

A: NO. The Court ruled that not every violation of a law will justify
straitjacketing the exercise of freedom of speech and of the press.
There are laws of great significance but their violation, by itself and
without more, cannot support suppression of free speech and free
press.

In fine, violation of law is just a factor, a vital one to be sure, which

should be weighed in adjusting whether to restrain freedom of speech
and of the press. The totality of the injurious effects of the violation to
private and public interest must be calibrated in light of the preferred
status accorded by the Constitution and by related international
covenants protecting freedom of speech and of the press.

By all means, violations of law should be vigorously prosecuted by the

State for they breed their own evil consequence. But to repeat, the need
to prevent their violation cannot per se trump the exercise of free
speech and free press, a preferred right whose breach can lead to
greater evils. (Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, 15 Feb. 2008)