MAMBA v.

Judge GARCIA

X =Renato Bulatao
Y = Judge Dominador Garcia
Z= Arresting Officer

Facts:
On August 23, 1996, a complaint for violation of Presidential Decree
No.1866 (illegal possession of firearms) was filed against a X before the sala of
Y.

Y set the preliminary investigation, but the same was subsequently postponed
and reset as Y was not present, although the complaining officers appeared in
court. Later, the preliminary investigation was again reset. On the day before
the new date of preliminary investigation, X, complained to the NBI that at the
first scheduled preliminary investigation, the arresting officer demanded P
30,000.00 from him in consideration of the withdrawal of the criminal case
against him.

According to X, the demand was reiterated by Z and Y. As X told them that he

could not afford it, the amount was reduced to P 6,000.00. Based on X’s report,
the NBI set out to entrap Y and Z.

X was given a tape recorder to record his conversation with whoever will receive
the money. After handing the money to the police officers, X went out of Y’s
chamber. Upon his signal, the NBI operatives waiting outside Ys court then
rushed to the Y’s chamber and arrested Z after recovering marked bills in their
possession.

Issue:

Is the recording of private conversations without the consent of the parties is

admissible in evidence in any proceeding

Held:

No.

Under the law, the recording of private conversations without the

consent of the parties contravenes the provisions of Rep. Act. No. 4200,
otherwise known as the Anti-Wire Tapping Law, and renders the same
inadmissible in evidence in any proceeding.

Here, X recorded their conversation with Z without the latter’s permission.

However, Y is guilty not just of improper conduct but of serious misconduct.

Serious misconduct is such conduct which affects a public officer's

performance of his duties as such officer and not only that which affects his
character as a private individual.