ANTI-WIRE TAPPING LAW

(RA 4200)
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
dectaphone 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.
LISTENING TO CONVERSATION
IN EXTENSION LINE OF TELEPHONE
IS NOT WIRE-TAPPING
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. 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. (66 SCRA 113,120)
A PERSON CALLING ANOTHER BY PHONE
MAY SAFELY PRESUME THAT THE OTHER
MAY HAVE AN EXTENSION LINE AND
RUNS THE RISK OF BEING HEARD BY A
3RD PARTY.

ANTI-WIRE TAPPING LAW

It can be readily seen that our lawmakers intended to
discourage through punishment, persons such as
government authorities or representatives of
organized groups from installing devices in order to
gather evidence for use in court or to intimidate,
blackmail or gain some unwarranted advantage over
the telephone users. Consequently, the mere act of
listening, in order to be punishable must strictly be
with the use of the enumerated devices in RA 4200 or
others of similar nature. We are of the view that an
extension telephone is not among such devices or
arrangements.
RAPE AS CRIME AGAINST PERSONS
(R.A. 8353)
Rape, When And How Committed

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.

"1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a

woman under any of the following circumstances:

MERE ACT OF LISTENING TO A

TELEPHONE CONVERSATION IN AN
EXTENSION LINE IS NOT PUNISHED BY

"2) By any person who, under any of the

circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall
commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis

"a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;

"b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious;
"c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave
abuse of authority; and
"d) When the offended party is under twelve (12)
years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present.

into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any

instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of
another person.
WHEN INEXCUSABLE IMPRUDENCE ON
PART OF VICTIM AS TO IDENTITY OF
OFFENDER IS NOT RAPE
The evidence shows that this mistake was purely a
subjective configuration of Zareen's mind an
assumption entirely contrived by her. Our impression
is that Silvino had nothing to do with the formulation of
this belief; he did nothing to mislead or deceive
Zareen into thinking that he was Enrico. In fact,
Silvino precisely, and confidently, told her, "Zareen, it's
not Ricky, it's Jun. I love you." It is thus obvious that
whatever mistake there was could only be attributable
to Zareen and her inexcusable imprudence and
to nobody else. Clearly, the fault was hers. She had
the opportunity to ascertain the identity of the man but
she preferred to remain passive and allow things to
happen as they did. Silvino never used force on her
and was even most possibly encouraged by the fact
that when he pulled down her panties she never
objected; when her legs were being parted she never
objected; and, when he finally mounted her she never
objected. Where then was force?
Third, Zareen was not deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious when the accused had intercourse with
her. Her lame excuse was that she was half-asleep.
However she admitted that in the early morning of 1
May 1994 she woke up to find someone removing her
underwear. Thuswise it cannot be said that she was

deprived of reason or unconscious. She knew, hence

was conscious, when her panties were being pulled
down; she knew, hence was conscious, when her legs
were being parted to prepare for the sexual act; she
knew, hence was conscious, when the man was
pulling down his briefs to prepare himself likewise for
the copulation; she knew, hence was conscious, when
the man mounted her and lusted after her virtue. Her
justification was that she never objected to the sexual
act from the start because she thought that the man
was her boyfriend with whom she was having sex
almost every night for the past three (3) weeks as
they were getting married and wanted already to have
a baby. In other words, her urge could not wait for the
more appropriate time. (People v. Salarza, Jr.)
NATURE OF INTIMIDATION IN RAPE CASES
Intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim. It is
subjective and its presence cannot be tested by any
hard-and-fast rule, but must be viewed in the light of
the victims perception and judgement at the time of
the crime.
In the case at bar, at the time the crime was
committed, the victim was 40 yrs. old, 5 months
pregnant, unarmed and married to a person older
than her by almost 20 yrs.. In contrast, appellant was
in his 20s, armed with a gun and purportedly in the
company of several NPA members. The crime
happened in the evening and in a place where help
was impossible. The nearest neighbor of the victim is
some 3 kms. from their hut. Considering all these
circumstances, we hold that the victim was intimidated
to submit to the lustful desire of the appellant. (Pp. V.

Mostrales; GR 125937, Aug.28, 1998)

WHEN INTIMIDATION IS SUSTAINED
BY MORAL ASCENDANCY IN RAPE
Intimidation in rape cases is not calibrated nor
governed by hard and fast rules. Since it is addressed
to the victim's and is therefore subjective, it must be
viewed in light of the victim's perception and judgment
at the time of the commission of the crime. It is
enough that the intimidation produced fear fear that
if the victim did not yield to the bestial demands of the
accused, something far worse would happen to her at
that moment. Where such intimidation existed and the
victim was cowed into submission as a result thereof,
thereby rendering resistance futile, it would be the
height of unreasonableness to expect the victim to
resist with all her might and strength. If resistance
would nevertheless be futile because of intimidation,
then offering none at all does not mean consent to the
assault so as to make the victim's submission to the
sexual act voluntary.
In any event, in a rape committed by a father against
his own daughter, as in this case, the former's moral
ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for
violence or intimidation. Likewise, it must not be
forgotten that at her tender age of 14 years, EDEN
could not be expected to act with the equanimity of
disposition and with nerves of steel, or to act like a
mature and experienced woman who would know
what to do under the circumstances, or to have
courage and intelligence to disregard the threat. Even
in cases of rape of mature women, this Court

recognized their different and unpredictable reactions.

Some may shout; some may faint; and some may be
shocked into insensibility; while others may openly
welcome the intrusion. (People v. Agbayani; GR
122770, Jan. 16, 98)
TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER A WOMAN
VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED TO SEXUAL
INTERCOURSE
Physical resistance is not the sole test to determine
whether or not a woman involuntarily succumbed to
the lust of an accused. Jurisprudence holds that even
though a man lays no hand on a woman, yet if by
array of physical forces he so overpowers her mind
that she does not resist or she ceases resistance
through fear of greater harm, the consummation of
unlawful intercourse by the man is rape. (Pp. V.
Mostrales; GR 125937, Aug.28, 1998)
DATE OF COMMISSION OF RAPE NOT ESSENTIAL
ELEMENT OF SAID CRIME
It is settled that even a variance of a few months
between the time set out in the indictment and that
established by the evidence during the trial has been
held not to constitute an error so serious as to warrant
reversal of a conviction solely on that score. The
failure of the complainant to state the exact date and
time of the commission of the rape is a minor matter
(Pp. V. Bernaldez; GR 109780,Aug. 17, 1998)

EXAMPLE OF VIRTUAL CONFESSION OF FACT

AND NOT IN LAW IN CASES OF RAPE
It is conceded that after the rape, Accused sent
complainant two letters in which he implored her
forgiveness and offered to leave his wife so that he
could be with her. In fine, appellant sealed his own
fate by admitting his crime under a seal of virtual
confession in fact, if not in law. (Pp. V. Prades; GR
127569, July 30, 1998)