SALCEDO-ORTAÑEZ v. CA and up to six (6) years for violation of said Act.

G.R. No. 110662, Aug. 4, 1994

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 28545 is hereby
Doctrines: Absent a clear showing that both parties to the telephone conversations SET ASIDE. The subject cassette tapes are declared inadmissible in evidence.
allowed the recording of the same, the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is
mandatory under Rep. Act No. 4200.

Facts:
 Private respondent Rafael S. Ortañez filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City a complaint for annulment of marriage with damages against
petitioner Teresita Salcedo-Ortañez, on grounds of lack of marriage license
and/or psychological incapacity of the petitioner.
 Private respondent, after presenting his evidence, orally formally offered in
evidence Exhibits “A” to “M”. Among the exhibits offered by private
respondent were three (3) cassette tapes of alleged telephone
conversations between petitioner and unidentified persons. These were
obtained when private respondent allowed his friends from the military to
wire tap his home telephone.
 Petitioner submitted her Objection/Comment to private respondent’s oral
offer of evidence. However, trial court admitted all of private respondent’s
offered evidence.
 A petition for certiorari was then filed by petitioner in the Court of Appeals
assailing the admission in evidence of the aforementioned cassette tapes.
CA: dismissed. Hence, this case.

Issue: WON the cassette tapes are admissible in evidence -> NO.

Held: Sec. 1 & 41, Rep. Act No. 4200 entitled “An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire
Tapping and Other Related Violations of the Privacy of Communication, and for other
purposes” expressly makes such tape recordings inadmissible in evidence.

Absent a clear showing that both parties to the telephone conversations allowed the
recording of the same, the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory under
Rep. Act No. 4200.

Additionally, it should be mentioned that the above- mentioned Republic Act in

Section 2 thereof imposes a penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) months

1 “Section 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 communi-cation or spoken word by using a device commonly
known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie- talkie or tape-recorder, or however
otherwise described. x x x”
meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained, obtained or secured by
any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any
judicial, quasi- judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.”

“Section 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, or