Claudine Barretto files violation of Anti Wire-tapping Law against Raymart Santiago

Claudine Barretto’s lawyer, Atty. Junelet Mataro (right), claims Raymart Santiago is “criminally liable for violation of R.A. 4200” because of the video recordings he submitted to the court against his wife.


Nagsampa ng reklamong paglabag sa R.A. 4200, o Anti Wire-tapping Law, ang kampo ni Claudine Barrretto laban sa asawa ng aktres na si Raymart Santiago.

Sa City Prosecutor’s Office ng Marikina City raw ito isinampa, kanina lamang, Oktubre 1.

Inanunsiyo nina Claudine ang hakbang nilang ito sa press conference na ginanap sa Hotel Rembrandt, kung saan sinagot ng aktres ang akusasyon ni Raymart na gumagamit diumano siya ng ipinagbabawal na gamot.

(Read: Claudine Barretto denies Raymart Santiago’s allegation that she is a drug user)

Kasamang humarap ng aktres sa presscon ang legal counsels niyang sina Atty. Ferdinand Topacio at Atty. Junelet Mataro, at ang ama niyang si Miguel Barretto.

Para sa panibagong reklamong ito, nagsalita si Atty. Mataro, na abugado rin ng aktres sa reklamo niyang violation of R.A. 9262 o Violence Against Women and Children (VAWC) laban pa rin kay Raymart.

Ayon kay Atty. Mataro, isinampa nila ang reklamong paglabag sa Anti Wire-tapping Law kay Raymart dahil sa video ni Claudine na isinama ng aktor sa kanyang counter-affidavit.

(Read: Raymart Santiago submits details of Claudine Barretto’s alleged drug dependence in his counter-affidavit)

“In the first place, ayaw po talaga sana ni Claudine na mag-file ng kung anu-anong kaso.

“We actually want to concentrate on the Violation Against Women and Children because that is the abuse that she has been experiencing.

“Unfortunately, Mr. Raymart Santiago, in his counter-affidavit, attached a video recording, his own recording, of a private conversation between him and my client, Ms. Claudine.

“I don’t know if he doesn’t know, but that is a clear violation of Claudine’s right to privacy.”



INVALID EVIDENCE. Ipinaliwanag ni Atty. Mataro kung bakit sa tingin nila ay hindi maaaring gawing ebidensiya ang videos na isinumite ni Raymart.

Aniya, “You see, our Constitution provides our Bill of Rights, and one of those rights is that every person shall have the right to privacy in communication.

ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW

“And any evidence obtained in violation of this right shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding, whether it be judicial or legislative or quasi-judicial procedure.

“In his counter-affidavit, he readily admitted, and I would quote, ‘I was able to get my own video of this incident using my cellphone, with Complainant charging at me and running to my car.

“‘This video, likewise, proves our allegation that she passed out and when she woke up, I was already on top of her.

“‘A copy of this video taken by me is hereto attached and made an integral part of this counter-affidavit...’”

Bukod sa mga isinumiteng video, nabanggit ni Raymart na marami pa siyang ilalabas na video sa korte laban sa asawa.

(Read: Raymart Santiago holds more evidence against Claudine Barretto: "Depensa ko yun sa sarili ko. Meron pa tayong pang-opensa.")

Nang tanungin ng media si Claudine kung alam niyang kinukunan siya sa mga video na gagamitin ni Raymart bilang ebidensya, sinabi ng aktres:

“Ngayon ko lang nalaman na mayroon pang ibang mga videos.

“Sa aming pamamahay, pinayagan ng asawa ko yung mga boy, mga drivers, mga masahista, na kunan ako ng mga stolen videos.

“So, ang pakiramdam ko, hindi mo na nga prinotektahan ang mga anak mo, lalo ako bilang asawa niya, pinabayaan mo pa na bastusin nila.”



PROPER FORUM. Ang pagkuha ng video ni Raymart kay Claudine nang hindi nito alam ang nakikitang rason ng kampo ng aktres para magsampa ng panibagong reklamo.

Ani Atty. Mataro: “[The law] provides that it shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to record such communication or spoken word by using a device.

“Furthermore, it also provides that it shall also be unlawful for any person to knowingly possess any tape record, disc record, of this private communication.

ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW

“It also prohibits the communication of the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing.

“Applying these parameters, it is crystal clear that Mr. Santiago is criminally liable for violation of R.A. 4200.”

Ayon sa abugada, ayaw sana ng kampo ni Claudine na magsampa ng panibagong reklamo laban sa aktor.

Pahayag ni Atty. Mataro, “While it is true that this story between Raymart and Claudine seemingly turn into a teleserye already, we do not actually want to file cases anymore.

“Unfortunately, Raymart has been continuously trampling on the rights of our client.”

Kaya raw sila nagsampa ng kaso, ayon kay Atty. Mataro: “We cannot go to the media for publicity. We do not want a trial by publicity.”

Depensa pa ng abugado ng aktres, tumahimik na si Claudine matapos maisampa ang reklamong paglabag sa R.A. 9262 laban kay Raymart.

“Unfortunately, Mr. Santiago has been continuously violating Claudine’s right.

"And this time, it is the violation of her right to privacy,” sabi ni Atty. Mataro.


WE RECOMMEND


FROM THE SUMMIT MEDIA NETWORK


SPONSORED CONTENT


COMMENTS

Loading comments

THIS JUST IN