Scribd
Upload
29 views1 page

Teresita Salcedo

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled wiretapped audio recordings obtained without consent to be inadmissible as evidence. The private respondent in an annulment case had presented tape recordings of the petitioner's phone conversations acquired through the respondent's military friends wiretapping the home phone. Both the trial court and Court of Appeals ruled the evidence admissible. However, the Supreme Court held that Republic Act No. 4200 expressly makes such recordings obtained without consent inadmissible. As there was no showing of consent, admission of the tapes violated the law.

Uploaded by

B10gaming B10
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
29 views1 page

Teresita Salcedo

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled wiretapped audio recordings obtained without consent to be inadmissible as evidence. The private respondent in an annulment case had presented tape recordings of the petitioner's phone conversations acquired through the respondent's military friends wiretapping the home phone. Both the trial court and Court of Appeals ruled the evidence admissible. However, the Supreme Court held that Republic Act No. 4200 expressly makes such recordings obtained without consent inadmissible. As there was no showing of consent, admission of the tapes violated the law.

Uploaded by

B10gaming B10
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

TERESITA SALCEDO-ORTANEZ, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ROMEO F. ZAMORA, Presiding Judge, Br. 94, Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City and RAFAEL S. ORTANEZ

G.R. No. 110662G.R. No. 110662

Facts:

The private respondent, Rafael Ortanez filed an annulment case against the
petitioner in the RTC. Among the evidences shown by the former were wiretapped
tape recordings with an unknown person that was acquired with help of the
respondent’s military friends. The petitioner filed an objection to the RTC and
petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals regarding the admissibility of the
evidence, but both of the Judges ruled that the evidence was admissible and thus
the appeal.

Issue: WON, the wiretapped electronic evidence (tape recordings) is admissible?

Held:

No, the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence of wiretapped audio recordings is
inadmissible. In the present case, the trial court issued the assailed order admitting
all of the evidence offered by private respondent, including tape recordings of
telephone conversations of petitioner with unidentified persons. These tape
recordings were made and obtained when private respondent allowed his friends
from the military to wiretap his home telephone.

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

Clearly, respondents’ trial court and Court of Appeals failed to consider the afore-
quoted provisions of the law in admitting in evidence the cassette tapes in question.
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.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy