15 Navarro vs CA b.

Said law only prohibits overhearing, intercepting, or recording of

private communications – the exchange in this case is not a private
1. Jalbuena and Lingan, who were reporters of a radio station went to
communication.
Entertainment City because of reports that there were nude dancers
2. Said voice recording is likewise duly authenticated.
a. Jalbuena took a photo of the strippers
a. By the testimony of the witness: who personally recorded the
b. He was approached by Liquin (floor manager) and Sioco (security
conversation; the tape played was the one he recorded; the voice on
guard) and was made to explain
tape are those of the persons whom are claimed to belong to
c. He said “wala kang pakielam”. Sioco threatedned to kill him, but
3. The voice recording established that there was a heated exchange
Jalbuena ran outside and went to the police station.
between Lingan and Navarro; and that there was some form of violence
2. At the police station, Navarro, one of the police on duty was drinking,
that occurred.
while Jalbuena reported the matter to the sergeant officer.
4. An autopsy medical certificate was issued by Dr. Yamamoto showing
a. Liquin and Sioco arrived to the station and talked to Navarro
Lingan’s death was caused by cerebral concussion and shock, because of
b. Navarro then turned to Jalbuena and cursed at him, pushed him and
a blow to the head by a hard object.
pulled out his firearm and threatened to kill him.
5. However, the remarks of Lingan constituted sufficient provocation, a
c. Lingan intervened and had a heated exchange with Navarro. Lingan
valid mitigating circumstance. And the lack of intent of Navarro to
told Navarro to drop his gun and have a fist fight with him instead.
commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
d. Navarro hit Lingan with the handle of the pistol above his left
a. Aggravating circumstance – commission of a crime where public
eyebrow. Navarro then punched Lingan.
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties
3. Lingan was taken to the hospital but later on died from injuries.
4. Unknown to them, Jalbuena was able to record on tape the exchange
between the parties.
a. Navarro was arguing that it was Lingan who tried to hit him twice but
he was able to duck. That Lingan was too drunk which caused him to
hit the concrete twice.
5. TC: Navarro is guilty of homicide, based on the testimony of Jalbuena, the
post-mortem report as to the cause of death of Lingan.
a. CA affirmed.
6. Navarro questioned the credibility of Jalbuena. That the latter had a
grudge against him
a.

WON the voice recording is admissible YES

1. As to Jalbuena’s credibility, the SC found that it was confirmed by the

voice recording made by him
a. RA 4200 prohibits wire tapping, and evidence obtained by him in such
is inadmissible in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or
administrative hearing or investigation