G.R. No. 121087 – 372 Phil. 21 – 313 SCRA 153 – Criminal Law – Book I – Aggravating Circumstances – Crime Committed in Places where Official duties are discharged
Remedial Law – Evidence – Exclusionary Rule – RA 4200 – No wire tapping if communication is not private
In February 1990, Ike Lingan and Stanley Jalbuena, both radio reporters, went to a police station in Lucena City. At the police station, they had an argument with police officer Felipe Navarro. During the argument, Navarro assaulted Lingan which caused Lingan’s death. Unknown to Navarro, Jalbuena, using a tape recorder, secretly recorded the exchange of words between Navarro and Lingan. Later, Navarro was sued for the death of Lingan. The trial court convicted Navarro and one of the pieces of evidence appreciated by the court in convicting him was the recorded conversation. On appeal, Navarro argued that the tape recording must be excluded as evidence in accordance with Republic Act No. 4200 or the Anti-Wire Tapping Act considering that the recording was without his consent.
ISSUE: Whether or not the tape recording is admissible in evidence.
HELD: Yes. It is true that the law prohibits the overhearing, intercepting, or recording of private communications. However, the exchange between Navarro and Lingan was not private, thus, its tape recording is not prohibited.
Note: The exchange between Navarro and Lingan happened in a police station and in the presence of others.
ISSUE 2: Whether or not there is an aggravating circumstance against Navarro due to the fact that he committed such crime in the police station?
HELD 2: Yes. A police station is a place where public authorities such as policemen are engaged in the discharge of their duties. Since Navarro, who is a cop, committed the crime inside the police station, an aggravating circumstance is appreciated against him.
