Revised Penal Code

• The law on trespass can be found in Chapter Two , Section Two of the Revised Penal Code. It is classified as a crime against security.

*Dwelling - a house, apartment, or other place of residence.

Art. 280 – Qualified trespass to dwelling.

• Any private person who shall enter the dwelling of another against the latter’s will shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

• If the offense be committed by means of violence or intimidation, the penalty shall be prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

1 Entering another’s dwelling for the purpose of preventing some serious harm to self

2 Occupants of the dwelling or a third person3 Entering a dwelling to render service to

humanity or justice4 Entering cafes, taverns, inns and other public

houses while the same are open

Art. 281 – Other forms of trespass.

• The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who shall enter the closed premises or the fenced estate of another, while either or them are uninhabited, if the prohibition to enter be manifest and the trespasser has not secured the permission of the owner or the caretaker thereof.

Gabriel and Natividadvs

People of the Philippines and CACase on Trespass to dwelling

Facts

• Appellants Gabriel and Natividad asked Court of Appeals to reverse the judgment on their case regarding trespass to dwelling.

Facts

• Sherman Jones and wife Josefina Jones owned a home wherein the electric meter of which was installed on a wall in a balcony, visible from the porch.

• Accused arrived the Jones’ residence and met Mrs. Jones at the porch and subsequently introduced themselves as inspectors for Meralco.

Facts

• Accused asked Mrs. Jones for the presence of Mr. Jones; Mrs. Jones subsequently told accused to wait on the porch and went inside the house, closing the door behind her.

• While Mrs. Jones went to inform her husband of the presence of the Meralco inspectors, accused Gabriel inspected the meter and shouted to his co-accused Natividad, “Naty, atras ang contador.”

Facts

• Accused Natividad then rushed into the house and then entered the bedroom where Mr. And Mrs. Jones were, pushing the door with such force that it brushed aside Mrs. Jones who was behind it.

• Accused Gabriel followed and the two searched for a gadget that they suspected to be in Mr. Jones possession that would allow him to steal electric fluid.

Facts

• Counsel of the accused argued that his clients were exempt from criminal liability on the grounds that the entry was done in “rendering service to justice,” and that they allegedly found Mr. Jones hiding a transformer in an “aparador.”

Facts

• Court of Appeals did not believe the counsel of the accused and found the claim to be “a vain effort on the part of the appellants to fit the facts of the case to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code to the effect that a person who enters a dwelling for the purpose of rendering service to justice, is not guilty of trespass.”

Ruling

• Court of Appeals believed that accused merely suspected that a transformer was in the house.

Issue

• Whether or not Gabriel and Natividad are indeed guilty of trespass to dwelling

Ruling

• Yes.• The suspicion alone of the accused did not

warrant their right to enter the dwelling against the will of the owner, more so that accused did not possess a search warrant

Ruling

• Court of Appeals said that the porch is an open part of the house, and being allowed to wait there under the circumstances mentioned can in no sense be taken as entry to a dwelling with the consent of the dweller

• Court of Appeals affirms the decision of the lower courts, with costs against the appellants.

AN ACT TO EXEMPT THE PUBLISHER, EDITOR OR REPORTER OF ANY

PUBLICATION FROM REVEALING THE SOURCE OF PUBLISHED NEWS OR

INFORMATION OBTAINED IN CONFIDENCE

Sen. Vicente Sotto

- Is the author of the Republic Act 53- October 5,1946RA53 - Press Freedom Law or Shield Law

RA 53

• Section 1. The publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news report or information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter, unless the court or a House of committee of Congress finds that such Revelation is demanded by the interest of the state

Conditions

• Publisher• Editor• Columnist• duly accredited reporter of any newspaper,

magazine or periodical of general circulation

In re Parazo

FACTS:• ANGEL PARAZO – duly accredited reporter of the Star (local daily of general circulation)•“Claim Leak in the Last Bar Tests” – appeared front page in Star on Sept. 14, 1948•Justice Padilla – Chairman of the Committee of Bar Examiners; Commissioner Jose de la Cruz and Soriano Clerk of Court cite Parazo for questioning and investigation

In re Parazo• Sept. 18, 1948 – investigation transpired• Parazo said he wrote the story and published it in

GOOD FAITH and in SPIRIT OF PUBLIC SERVICE• He knew the persons who gave him the

information which is the basis of his publication but he declined to reveal their names because the information was given to him in confidence.

• His informants id not wish to have their identities revealed

• He invoked the benefits of RA 53

In re Parazo

Issue:Whether or not Angel Parazo should be held in

contempt even if he invoked the benefits of RA 53

In Re ParazoRuling: • The phrase "interest of the state" is quite broad and

extensive • the Supreme Court as representative of the Judicial

Department, to adopt proper and adequate measures to preserve their integrity, and render possible and facilitate the exercise of their functions, including, as in the present case, the investigation of charges of error, abuse or misconduct of their officials and subordinates, including lawyers, who are officers of the Court.

• We find that the interest of the state in the present case demands that the respondent Angel J. Parazo reveal the source or sources of his information which formed the basis of his news items or story in the September 14, 1948 issue of the Star Reporter,

Phrase: Interest of the State

• phrase in R.A. 53 was not limited to national security or public safety situations

• "interest of the State" included matters of national importance such as principal functions of Government like the administration of justice. (the administration of justice would be obstructed by the reporters’ refusal to disclose their source for their news reports.)

RA 1477• Section 1. Without prejudice to his liability

under the civil and criminal laws, the publisher, editor, columnist or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal the source of any news-report or information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher, editor or reporter unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State."

Exemptions

• House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State.”

Security of the State

• the standard of evidence from "interest" to "security" of the State would make it considerably more difficult to require journalists to reveal their sources.

You cannot invoke RA 53

• cannot invoke such right as a shield against liability for printing stories that are untrue and derogatory of the courts, or others.

• no immunity from prosecution for libel or for other sanction under law

Discovery & Revelation of Secret

[Art. 290-292 of C3]

TERMS and definitions• Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. —

The duration of the penalties of prision correccional, suspension and destierro shall be from six months and one day to six years, except when suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.

• l

TERMS and definitions• Arresto mayor — The duration of the penalty of

arresto mayor shall be from one month and one day to six months.

Art. 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence

Art. 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence

• Penalties:– prision correccional

• If papers or letters were seized and contents were revealed.

– fine not exceeding 500 pesos – NOTE: If offender shall not reveal such secrets,

penalty will be reduced to arresto mayor and fine not exceeding 500 pesos.

The Anti-Wiretapping Law

Republic Act 4200 is probably the most quoted law nowadays. Thus, it is worthy to examine the said law and discuss its pertinent provisions.

TERMS and DEFINITIONS

• Wiretapping–- the practice of connecting a

listening device to a telephone line to secretly monitor a conversation.

Section 1: An Act to Prohibit and Penalized Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations of Private Communication and Other Purposes

“ 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 detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described.”

EXEMPTIONS

• Under Section 3 of R.A. 4200, a peace officer, who is AUTHORIZED BY A WRITTEN ORDER OF THE COURT, may execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the two preceding sections 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.

Issuing written order

• Affirmation of the applicant and the witness he may produce• A showing that:

– crimes enumerated hereinabove has been committed or is being committed or is about to be committed

– reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any of such crimes

– no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence

INADMISSIBILITY OF WIRETAPPED EVIDENCE

• Section 4 of R.A. 4200– “…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 5. All laws inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or accordingly amended.

• SECTION 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Ramirez vs CA

Anti-Wiretapping Law

Facts

• Petitioner Ramirez filed a civil case against Ester S. Garcia, alleging that the respondent vexed, insulted and humiliated her in a “hostile and furious mood” and in a manner offensive to petitioner’s dignity and personality, “contrary to morals, good customs and public policy.”

Facts

• Petitioner produced a transcript of the event and sought costs against the respondent amounting to P610,000.

• The transcript was based on a tape recording produced by the petitioner.

• Respondent filed a criminal case against the petitioner for violation of R.A. 4200, otherwise known as the Anti-Wiretapping Law.

Facts

• Respondent’s complaint cited the petitioner for wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously recording their conversation in secret and thereafter communicating in writing the contents of the recording to another person.

Facts

• Ramirez then filed for a Motion for Reconsideration, stating that the applicable section of R.A. 4200 does not apply to the taping of a private conversation by one of the parties involved in the conversation and only to parties other than those involved.

• Petitioner also argued that R.A. 4200 penalizes “private communication” and not “private convsersations.”

Facts

• Court of Appeals ruled that the words of the provision are unambiguous, and that the provision will indeed penalize those involved in the private communication.

• Court of Appeals said that where the law makes no distinctions, one does not distinguish.

Facts

• Court of Appeals also addressed petitioners argument regarding “private communication” and “private conversations,” saying that narrowing down the meaning of “communication” was absurd.

• Court of Appeals stated the definition of the word “communication” and ruled that it is broad enough to include the conversation that took place between Ramirez and Garcia.

Issue

• Whether or not Ramirez’s act of secretly recording the conversation with Garcia constitutes and offense punishable by R.A. 4200.

RULING

• Yes.• The Court of Appeals stated that the provision

clearly stated that it is illegal for ANY person to secretly record any private communication unless authorized by all parties involved.

• Court of Appeals concluded that even a person involved in such communication who records his/her private conversation without the knowledge of the latter qualifies as a violator of aforementioned provision of R.A. 4200.

Ruling

• Court of Appeals denies petition of Ramirez for reconsideration on the grounds that the law applied to the case is clear and unambiguous. Costs against petitioner.