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.
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.
MERE ACT OF LISTENING TO A
TELEPHONE CONVERSATION IN AN
EXTENSION LINE IS NOT PUNISHED BY
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.
REPUBLIC ACT 7832. AN ACT PENALIZING THE PILFERAGE OF ELECTRICITY AND THEFT OF POWER TRANSMISSION LINES/MATERIALS, RATIONALIZING SYSTEMS LOSSES BY PHASING OUT PILFERAGE LOSSES AS A COMPONENT THEREOF, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Purpose:
Its purpose is to prevent losses by penalizing the pilferage of electricity and theft of power transmission lines/materials. In order for the electric industry to remain viable and sustainable, electricity theft must be stopped and discouraged starting from its origins, the consumers.
Spouses Antonio and Lorna Quisimbing vs. MANILA ELECTTRIC COMPANY RTJ-99-1443. G.R. No. 142943, April 3, 2002]
The law says that before immediate disconnection may be allowed, the discovery of the illegal use of electricity must have been personally witnesses and attested to b an officer of the law or by authorized ERB representative. In this case, the disconnection was effected immediately after the discovery of the alleged meter tampering, which was witnesses only be Meralco’s employees. That the ERB representative was allegedly present when the meter was examined in the Meralco laboratory will not cure the defect.
THEFT OF ELECTRICITY AND VIOLATION OF P.D. 401 DISTINGUISHED
It must be stressed that theft of electricity is a felony defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code, while Violation of P.D. 401, as amended by B.P. Blg. 876, is an offense punished by a special law. What generally makes the former a felony is criminal intent (dolo) or negligence (culpa); what makes the latter a crime is the special law enacting it. In addition, the elements of the two (2) offenses are different from one another. In theft, the elements are :(1) intent to gain; (2) unlawful taking; (3) personal property belonging to another; (4) and absence of violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things. On the other hand, the crime of Violation of P.D. 401, as amended by B.P. Blg. 876, is mala prohibita. The criminal act is not inherently immoral but becomes punishable only because the law says it is forbidden. With these crimes, the sole issue is whether the law has been violated. Criminal intent is not necessary.
(Diaz vs. Davao Light and Power Co., Inc. et. Al., G.R. 160959, April 4, 2007)
SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAW
(RA 7877)
WORK, EDUCATION OR TRAINING-RELATED
SEXUAL HARASSMENT DEFINED.
Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is committed by an employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or education environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said Act.
WHEN SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS COMMITTED:
Work, Education or Training-related Sexual Harassment Defined
Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is committed by an employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or education environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said Act.
In work-related or employment environment:
(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-employment or continued employment of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in any way would discriminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee;
(2) The above acts would impair the employee’s rights or privileges under existing labor laws; or
(3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee.
In an education or training environment:
(1) Against one who is under the care, custody or supervision of the offender;
(2) Against one whose education, training, apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted to the offender;
(3) When the sexual favor is made a condition to the giving of a passing grade, or the granting of honors and scholarships or the payment of a stipend, allowance or other benefits, privileges, or considerations; or
(4) When the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the student, trainee or apprentice.
Any person who directs or induces another to commit any act of sexual harassment as herein defined, or who cooperates in the commission thereof by another without which it would not have been committed, shall also be held liable under this Act.
JURISPRUDENCE:
Floralde vs. Court off Appeals, (G.R. No. 123048, August 8, 2000)
“Sexual harassment in the workplace is not about a man taking advantage of a woman by reason of sexual desire; it is about power being exercised by as superior officer over his women subordinates. The power emanates from the fact that the superior can remove the subordinate from his workplace if the latter would refuse his amorous advances.
Domingo v. Rayala, G.R. No. 155831, Feb. 8, 2000
Sexual harassment is an imposition of misplaced “superiority” which is enough to dampen an employee’s spirit and her capacity for advancement. It effects her sense of judgment.
In Domingo v. Rayala, it was held. “It is true that this provision calls for a demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor be articulated in a categorical oral or written statement. It may be discerned, with equal certitude, from the acts of the offender.”
Bacsin vs. Wahiman, (G.R. No. 146053, April 30, 2008)
In this case, it was held that: “In grave misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule must be manifest. The act of petitioner of fondling one of his students is against law, RA 7877, and is doubtless inexcusable. The particular act of petitioner cannot in any way be construed as a case of simple misconduct. Sexually molesting a child is, by any norm, a revolting act that it cannot be categorized as a grave offense. Parents entrust the care and molding of their children to teachers, and expect them to be their guardians while in school. Petitioner has violated that trust. The charge of grave misconduct proven against petitioner demonstrates his unfitness to remain as a teacher and continue to discharge the functions of his office.”
Esteban vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 146646-49), March 11, 2005
In this case, the Supreme Court held that: While it is true, as petitioner argues, that public office is not an element of the crime of acts of lasciviousness, defined and penalized under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, nonetheless, he could not have committed the crimes charged were it not for the fact that the Presiding Judge of the MTCC, Branch 1, Cabanatuan City, he has the authority to recommend the appointment of Ana May as bookbinder. In other words, the crimes allegedly committed are intimately connected with his office.
