ANTI-WIRE TAPPING ACT OF 1965

R.A. NO. 4200

CHRISTIAN JERIC L. CALIAG, RN

UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS, COLLEGE OF LAW
JD – 1A, A.Y. 2020-2021
PUNISHABLE ACTS
PUNISHABLE ACTS
a) 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 walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however
otherwise described;

wiretap telephone
PUNISHABLE ACTS

a) 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 dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or
however otherwise described;

(Section 1, Paragraph 1)
Q:Who are the persons liable?

“The statute’s intent to penalize all persons unauthorized to

make such recording is underscored by the use of the
qualifier “any”. The provision seeks to penalize even those
privy to the private communications. Where the law makes
no distinctions, one does not distinguish.” (Ramirez vs. CA
G.R. No. 93833,1995)
PUNISHABLE ACTS

a) 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 dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or
however otherwise described;

(Section 1, Paragraph 1)
Q: Whose consent is needed for a recorded ‘private
communication’ to be lawful?

“Absent a clear showing that both parties to the

telephone conversations allowed the recording of the
same, the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is
mandatory under Rep. Act No. 4200.” (Salcedo-
Ortanez v. CA G.R. No. 110662,1994)
PUNISHABLE ACTS

a) 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 dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or
however otherwise described;

(Section 1, Paragraph 1)
Q: What is the scope of ‘private communication’ as
used in R.A. 4200?

In its ordinary signification, communication connotes

the act of sharing or imparting, as in a conversation, or
signifies the "process by which meaning, 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.
(Ramirez vs. CA G.R. No. 93833. September 28,
1995)
PUNISHABLE ACTS

a) 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 walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however
otherwise described;

(Section 1, Paragraph 1)
Q: What is the meaning of ‘any other device or
arrangement’ as used in R.A. 4200?

“…the phrase ‘device or arrangement’ in Section 1 of RA 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.” (Gaanan vs. IAC, G.R.
No. L-69809, 1986)
 Q: What is the meaning of ‘any other device or
arrangement’ as used in R.A. 4200?

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 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. (Gaanan
vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-69809, 1986)
PUNISHABLE ACTS

b) for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or acts

penalized in the next preceding sentence,

1) 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
PUNISHABLE ACTS

2) to replay the same for any other person or persons; or

3) to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally
or in writing, or
4) to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or
partial, to any other person.

(Section 1 Paragraph 2)
PUNISHABLE ACTS

c) for any person who willfully or

knowingly does or who shall
aid, permit, or cause to be done
any of the acts declared to be
unlawful or who violates the
provisions of the following section or of any order issued
thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes such violation.
(Section 2)
EFFECT OF VIOLATION
OF THE LAW
EFFECT OF VIOLATION OF THE LAW
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.

(Section 4)
EXCEPTIONS
EXCEPTIONS
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
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:
EXCEPTIONS
1. treason,
2. espionage,
3. provoking war and disloyalty in case of war,
4. piracy,
5. mutiny in the high seas,
6. rebellion,
7. conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion,
8. inciting to rebellion,
9. sedition,
10. conspiracy to commit sedition,
11. inciting to sedition,
12. kidnapping
13. violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616

That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil,
criminal investigation or trial, shall not be covered by this prohibition.
UPDATES
R.A. No. 11470
ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2020
Section 16. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of
Communications.- The provisions of Republic Act No. 4200, otherwise known as
the "Anti-Wire Tapping Law" to the contrary notwithstanding, a law enforcement
agent or military personnel may, upon a written order of the Court of Appeals
secretly wiretap, overhear and listen to, intercept, screen, read, survey, record
or collect, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic, mechanical or
other equipment or device or technology now known or may hereafter be known to
science or with the use of any other suitable ways and means for the above
purposes, any private communications, conversation, discussion/s, data,
information, messages in whatever form, kind or nature, spoken or written
words
R.A. No. 11470
ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2020
(a) between members of a judicially declared and
outlawed terrorist organization by the Court of
Appeals;

(b) between members of a designated person as defined

in RA No. 10168 (Financing Terrorism Act); or

(c) any person charged with or suspected of committing

any of the crimes defined and penalized under the
provisions of RA No. 11479.
R.A. No. 11470
ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2020
(a) between members of a judicially declared and
outlawed terrorist organization by the Court of
Appeals;

(b) between members of a designated person as

defined in RA No. 10168 (Financing Terrorism
Act); or

(c) any person charged with or suspected of committing

any of the crimes defined and penalized under the
provisions of RA No. 11479.
R.A. No. 11470
ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2020
(a) between members of a judicially declared and
outlawed terrorist organization by the Court of
Appeals;

(b) between members of a designated person as defined

in RA No. 10168 (Financing Terrorism Act); or

(c) any person charged with or suspected of

committing any of the crimes defined and
penalized under the provisions of RA No. 11479.
EXPANDED ANTI-WIRE TAPPING
ACT OF 2016 (Senate Bill 1210)

EXPANDED ANTI-WIRE TAPPING

ACT OF 2019 (Senate Bill 22)
Q: Are screenshots under the ambit of
R.A. No. 4200?
ADDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS
 ADDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS

1. Violations of the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002

 ADDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS

1. Violations of the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002

2. Violations of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001
 ADDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS

1. Violations of the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002

2. Violations of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001
3. Robbery in band, brigandage/highway robbery
4. Coup d'état
BAR EXAM QUESTIONS
1993

C told his lawyer, Atty. T, to settle the criminal case filed against L, and so Atty. T
called up through telephone L and informed him that C is willing to have the case
dismissed provided that L pays P8,000.00 and makes a public apology. L told Atty.
T to call him up the following day as he would consult his lawyer.
The following day when Atty. T called up L, the latter requested his lawyer Atty. X,
who was in his (L’s) office at that time, to secretly listen to the telephone
conversation through a telephone extension.
1993

When the P8,000.00 agreed upon on the telephone was delivered to Atty. T at the
appointed place and time, he (Atty. T) was arrested by the police for
Robbery/extortion on complaint of L who was accompanied by his lawyer, Atty. X.
The latter executed an affidavit stating that he heard Atty. T demanding P8,000.00
for the withdrawal of the criminal complaint through a telephone extension.
1993
On the basis of X and L for violation of sec. 1 of RA No. 4200, otherwise known as
the Anti-Wire Tapping Act, which says:
“ It shall be unlawful for any person not being authorized by all the parties to any
private conversation or spoken word to tap any wire or cable or by using any other
device or arraignment, to secretly overhear, intercept or record such commonly
known as Dictaphone or dictograph, or however otherwise described.”

If you were the Judge, would you convict or acquit L and his lawyer, Atty, X?
Support your decision with reasons. 
1993
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, because it is a telephone extension and those enumerated by law means an

extension with permanent recording of which a telephone extension is not. (Gaanan
vs. IAC, 145 SCRA 112)
2009

In 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. (3%).
2009
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The objection should be overruled. What the law prohibits is the overhearing,
intercepting, and recording of private communication. Since the exchange of heated
words was not private, its videotape recording is not prohibited under the Anti-Wire
Tapping law. (Navarro vs. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 153 [1999]).
2013

From an extension line, Ricardo overheard a telephone conversation between Julito

and Atty. Hipolito. The latter (Atty. Hipolito) was asking money from Julito in
exchange for dropping the extortion charge filed against Julito. Ricardo was charged
of violating the Anti-Wire Tapping Act or R.A. 4200.
2013
Under these facts, was there a violation as charged? (1%)
(A) Yes, because the conversation was private in nature.
(B) Yes, because the conversation was overheard without the consent of the
parties, Julito and Atty. Hipolito.
(C) No, because what is punishable is intentional listening to a conversation
through a wire.
(D) No, because a telephone extension line is not the device or arrangement
contemplated by the law and the use of an extension line cannot be considered as
wire tapping.
(E) None of the above.
2013
Under these facts, was there a violation as charged? (1%)
(A) Yes, because the conversation was private in nature.
(B) Yes, because the conversation was overheard without the consent of the
parties, Julito and Atty. Hipolito.
(C) No, because what is punishable is intentional listening to a conversation
through a wire.
(D) No, because a telephone extension line is not the device or arrangement
contemplated by the law and the use of an extension line cannot be
considered as wire tapping.
(E) None of the above.
END