R.A. No. 4200: Anti-Wiretapping Law

Can a person privy or party to the conversation be liable to anti-wiretapping law when he records the conversation?

Yes. There is no distinction in the law whether the person who made the recording was privy to the conversation or not. The determining factor is that the recording was made without the consent and knowledge of all the parties.

Is the nature of the conversation material?

No. The substance of the conversation need not be specifically alleged in the information. What RA 4200 penalizes are the acts of secretly overhearing, intercepting or recording private communications by means of the devices enumerated in the law. The mere allegation that an individual made a secret recording of a private communication by means of a tape recorded would suffice to constitute an offense. (G.R. No. 93833)

What is private communication?

Private communication includes private conversation. In its ordinary signification, communication connotes the act of sharing or impairing, as in conversation, or signifies the process by which meanings or thoughts are shared between individuals through common system or symbols. These definitions are broad enough to include verbal or non-verbal, written or expressive communications of meanings or thoughts.

Is listening through an extension phone a violation?

No. There must be a physical interruption through wiretap or a deliberate installation of a device or arrangement for that purpose. An extension telephone is for ordinary official use.

CGRLAW & Associates

5F First Global Building, 122 Gamboa Street
corner Salcedo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City
Tel. No. (+63 2) 985 4322
email: claude.requino@cgrlaw.ph

            info@cgrlaw.ph

website: http://www.cgrlaw.ph

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. You are hereby notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

PRIVACY: CCTV AND SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS

Can any person take pictures of your home without your consent? Can your neighbour install a CCTV that would pry to your property? NO NO.

In this day and age, video surveillance cameras are installed practically everywhere for the protection and safety of everyone. The installation this 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 Republic Act No. 4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping Law. (Hing v. Choachuy, G.R. No. 179736)

Clearly, it is a violation of one's right to privacy when CCTV or cameras are installed in a place that a person expects privacy. A CCTV that overlooks the neighbor's property is illegal. Taking pictures of the property or house of another without the owner's consent is illegal. Nevertheless, an individual's right to privacy should not be confined to his house or residences as it may extend to places where he has the right to exclude the public or deny them access. The phrase "prying into the privacy of another's residence," therefore, covers places, locations, or even situations which an individual considers as private. As long as his right is recognized by society, other individuals may not infringe on his right to privacy.

The right to privacy is the right to be let alone.

The right to privacy is enshrined in our Constitution and in our laws. It is defined as "the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of one’s person or from intrusion into one’s private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a person’s ordinary sensibilities." It is the right of an individual "to be free from unwarranted publicity, or to live without unwarranted interference by the public in matters in which the public is not necessarily concerned." Simply put, the right to privacy is "the right to be let alone."

The Bill of Rights guarantees the people’s right to privacy and protects them against the State’s abuse of power. In this regard, the State recognizes the right of the people to be secure in their houses. No one, not even the State, except "in case of overriding social need and then only under the stringent procedural safeguards," can disturb them in the privacy of their homes.

The right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code covers business offices where the public are excluded therefrom and only certain individuals are allowed to enter.

Article 26(1) of the Civil Code, on the other hand, protects an individual’s right to privacy and provides a legal remedy against abuses that may be committed against him by other individuals. It states:

Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:

(1) Prying into the privacy of another’s residence;

x x x x

This provision recognizes that a man’s house is his castle, where his right to privacy cannot be denied or even restricted by others. It includes "any act of intrusion into, peeping or peering inquisitively into the residence of another without the consent of the latter." The phrase "prying into the privacy of another’s residence," however, does not mean that only the residence is entitled to privacy. As elucidated by Civil law expert Arturo M. Tolentino:

Our Code specifically mentions "prying into the privacy of another’s residence." This does not mean, however, that only the residence is entitled to privacy, because the law covers also "similar acts." A business office is entitled to the same privacy when the public is excluded therefrom and only such individuals as are allowed to enter may come in. x x x (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, an individual’s right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code should not be confined to his house or residence as it may extend to places where he has the right to exclude the public or deny them access. The phrase "prying into the privacy of another’s residence," therefore, covers places, locations, or even situations which an individual considers as private. And as long as his right is recognized by society, other individuals may not infringe on his right to privacy. The CA, therefore, erred in limiting the application of Article 26(1) of the Civil Code only to residences.

The "reasonable expectation of privacy" test is used to determine whether there is a violation of the right to privacy.