NAVARRO vs.

CA
313 SCRA 153 (1999)

DOCTRINE: The Anti-Wiretapping Law prohibits the overhearing, intercepting, or recording of

private communications. Thus, a tape recording of an altercation or verbal exchange between a
policeman and a radio reporter at a police station is admissible in evidence.

FACTS:
Two local media men, Stanley Jalbuena, Enrique Lingan, in Lucena City went to the police
station to report alleged indecent show in one of the night establishment shows in the City. At
the station, a heated confrontation followed between victim Lingan and accused policeman
Navarro who was then having drinks outside the headquarters, lead to a fisticuffs. The victim was
hit with the handle of the accused's gun below the left eyebrow, followed by a fist blow, resulted
the victim to fell and died under treatment. The exchange of words was recorded on tape,
specifically the frantic exclamations made by Navarro after the altercation that it was the victim
who provoked the fight. During the trial, Jalbuena, the other media man, testified. Presented in
evidence to confirm his testimony was a voice recording he had made of the heated discussion
at the police station between the accused police officer Navarro and the deceased, Lingan, which
was taken without the knowledge of the two.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the voice recording is admissible in evidence in view of RA 4200, which
prohibits wiretapping.

2. Whether the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation or threat on the part of

the offended party and lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong may be appreciated in favor
of the accused.

HELD:
1. The answer is affirmative, the tape is admissible in view of RA 4200, which prohibits
wiretapping. Jalbuena's testimony is confirmed by the voice recording he had made.

The law prohibits the overhearing, intercepting, or recording of private communications

(Ramirez v Court of Appeals, 248 SCRA 590 [1995]). Since the exchange between petitioner
Navarro and Lingan was not private, its tape recording is not prohibited.

2. The remarks of Lingan, which immediately preceded the acts of the accused, constituted
sufficient provocation. Provocation is said to be any unjust or improper conduct of the offended
party capable of exciting, annoying or irritating someone. The provocation must be sufficient and
must immediately precede the act; and in order to be sufficient, it must be adequate to excite a
person to commit the wrong, which must be accordingly proportionate in gravity. The mitigating
circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong must also be considered. The
exclamations made by Navarro after the scuffle that it was Lingan who provoked him showed
that he had no intent to kill the latter.