Sponsored Links
Advertisement

Pwede Bang Irecord Ang Usapan At Gamitin Na Ebidensya?


“PWEDE KO BA I-RECORD ANG USAPAN NAMIN NG KABIT NG MISTER KO BILANG EBIDENSIYA NG PAG-AMIN NIYA SA RELASYON NILA?”

ANG PRIVATE CONVERSATION SA PHONE AT MGA VIDEO CONFERENCE AT IBA PANG PRIVATE INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS AY HINDI PWEDENG I-RECORD DAHIL ITO AY PROTEKTADO NG 1987 CONSTITUTION. ANUMANG EBIDENSIYA NA NAKUHA NA NAGVIOLATE NG PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION NG ISANG CITIZEN AY HINDI PWEDENG GAMITIN LABAN SA KANYA SA KORTE O ANUMANG KASO AT ITO AY ISANG KRIMEN BILANG ISANG VIOLATION NG ANTI-WIRETAPPING ACT O REPUBLIC ACT NO. 4200.

Dahil sa marami ang gumagamit ng celphone at internet, marami ang private communication na narerecord. Isang reader ng E-Lawyers Online ang nagtanong kung pwede ba niyang i-record ang conversation nila ng kaaway niya sa internet. Ganito ang tanong niya:

“Atty., may kabit po ang mister ko at kinakausap niya ako sa celphone at malakas ang loob na inaamin niya na may relasyon sila. Pwede ko po ba na i-record ito ay gamiting ebidensiya para makasuhan ko silang dalawa?”

Ang 1987 Constitution ang supreme law ng ating bansa. Ito ang pinakamataas na batas na namamayani at dapat umaayon ang iba pang batas na pinasa ng Kongreso. Nasa Section 2 and 3 Article III ng Bill of Rights ng 1987 Constitution ay nagsasabi na “Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Sinasabi rin sa Section 3 ng Article III ng 1987 Constitution na: (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.” Ang dalawang provision ng 1987 Constitution ang panglaban ng mga mamamayan sa anumang abuso ng gobyerno kung gagamitin ang “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012″ upang kumuha ng ebidensiya sa mga email, inbox, private messages at iba pang private internet communications ng walang pahintulot ng korte o walang search warrant o pagkuha ng beyond sa authority ng mga pulis.

Ang Section 2 and 3, Article III ng 1987 Constitution, ang right against illegal search and seizure at privacy of communication ng citizens ang mananaig at mamamayani dahil ito ang sacred rights ng bawat mamamayan sa isang civilized world. Hindi pwedeng balewalain ang mga basic fundamental rights na ito ng mga mamamayang Filipino dahil ang nagbibigay ng mga karapatan na ito ay ang supreme law of the land, ang 1987 Constitution.

Kung may violation ang mga pulis o law enforcement agenices sa pagkuha ng mga ebidensiya, ang anumang ebidensiya na nakuha ay hindi pwedeng gamitin sa korte o sa anumang ahensiya para kasuhan ang may-ari nito. Meron din tayong Anti-Wiretapping Act o Republic Act No. 4200 kung saan pinagbabawal ang pagrerecord ng private conversation ng dalawang partido sa telepono at iba pa ng walang knowledge at consent ang nasa kabilang linya. Sabi sa batas na ito ay:

Section 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 dictaphone 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.

Dahil ang pagrerecord ng private conversation ay isang krimen, ito ay may parusang kulong na 6 months to 6 years ayon sa Section 2 ng R.A. 4200:

Section 2. 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 in the preceding section or who violates the provisions of the following section or of any order issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes such violation shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months or more than six years and with the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification from public office if the offender be a public official at the time of the commission of the offense, and, if the offender is an alien he shall be subject to deportation proceedings.

Anumang recording na nakuha in violation of R.A. 4200 ay hindi pwedeng tanggapin sa anumang korte bilang evidence.

Kung gusto nyo magtanong ukol sa Anti-Wiretapping Law or electronic evidence register at my website at www.e-lawyersonline.com.

Visit and also like my FB page E-Lawyers Online. Ito ang link http://www.facebook.com/E.Lawyers.Online.


Leave a Reply