In the heated political environment, quarters eager to score a point against their opponent may employ a criminal stunt, such as recording private conversations without the permission of the subject individual.

This maneuver will hold the perpetrator liable for breaching multiple laws, primarily when it is spread through social media.

Under Republic Act 4200, also known as the Anti-Wiretapping Law, recording or filming without the knowledge and consent of an individual is a crime.

It prohibits any person from secretly listening in on, intercepting, or recording any private communication using any device without authorization.

It covers both oral and electronic forms of private communication in which the parties involved reasonably expect privacy.

This can include phone calls, face-to-face conversations held in private spaces, and electronic messages.

A key element of the law is that any communication or spoken word recorded is inadmissible as evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative, or administrative hearing or investigation.

The only exception is when a court order is obtained for wiretapping under specific conditions related to serious crimes like treason or espionage.

Accountability multiplies if the illegally obtained conversation is spread through social media.

Aside from the Anti-Wiretapping law, the ploy also violates the Republic Act 10173 or the Data Privacy Act of 2012.

A recorded conversation often contains personal information about the individuals involved, such as their voices and opinions.

Sharing this without their consent could be considered unauthorized processing and disclosure of personal data.

More severe penalties are imposed under the Data Privacy Act if the conversation reveals sensitive personal information.

Depending on the nature and extent of the violation, penalties may be fines of up to P5 million and imprisonment of up to seven years.

Under Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, the schemer can be charged with cyber libel if the recorded conversation contains defamatory material that harms an individual’s reputation.

The penalties for cyber libel are generally higher than for traditional libel. Civil liabilities under the Civil Code can also be imposed on such acts for invasion of privacy.

The provision of the law protects an individual’s dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind.

Persons who made the illegal recording and those who shared or spread it on social media, even if they were not the original recorder, are liable.

Knowingly possessing and communicating illegally obtained recordings is also a violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Law.

The issue was the centerpiece of the “Hello Garci” scandal, which involved audio recordings of a phone conversation allegedly discussing the manipulation of the 2004 presidential election results.

The tapes were leaked to the public and gained widespread notoriety.

Ultimately, the recordings were not used in court since they were not admissible as evidence.

While the focus was on the tapes’ contents, individuals responsible for the actual wiretapping and the initial dissemination of the recordings could have faced criminal charges. Some military personnel were implicated in the wiretapping itself.

While arguments were raised about the tapes’ admission due to their perceived importance in a matter of national interest, the courts consistently upheld the clear provisions of RA 4200 regarding the inadmissibility of illegally obtained evidence.

In their desperate effort to win, the sources of the intrigue are going to jail, not the subject of their folly.