Memorandum for Admissibility of Recorded Evidence

Republic Act 4200 provides:

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 communication or spoken
word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or
dictagraph or dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however
otherwise described:

It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in

the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence, to knowingly
possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such
record, or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word
secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the
manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for any other
person or persons; or to communicate the contents thereof, either
verbally or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether
complete or partial, to any other person: Provided, That the use of
such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal
investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section 3 hereof, shall
not be covered by this prohibition.

xxxx

Section 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence,

contents, substance, purport, effect, or 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.

From the foregoing provisions of Republic Act No. 4200, 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
communication 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. These sections also provide that it shall also be
unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in
the next preceding sentence, to knowingly possess any tape record, wire record,
disc record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any communication or
spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the
manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for any other person or
persons; or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to
furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other person.

On who is restricted to record

In Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 93833, 28 September 1995, the Supreme
Court answered the question on who is not allowed to record in this wise:

Section 1 of R.A. 4200 entitled, " An Act to Prohibit and Penalized Wire Tapping
and Other Related Violations of Private Communication and Other Purposes,"
provides:
Sec. 1. It shall be unlawfull 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 communication 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.

The aforestated provision clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any
person, not authorized by all the parties to any private communication to secretly
record such communication by means of a tape recorder. The law makes no
distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized by the statute ought to
be a party other than or different from those involved in the private
communication. The statute's intent to penalize all persons unauthorized to make
such recording is underscored by the use of the qualifier "any". Consequently, as
respondent Court of Appeals correctly concluded, "even a (person) privy to a
communication who records his private conversation with another without the
knowledge of the latter (will) qualify as a violator"  under this provision of R.A.
4200.

Thus, liability under RA 4200 is imposed to any persons who record a

conversation. In the same case, the content of the conversation is of no moment:

Second, the nature of the conversations is immaterial to a violation of the statute.

The substance of the same need not be specifically alleged in the information.
What R.A. 4200 penalizes are the acts of secretly overhearing, intercepting or
recording private communications by means of the devices enumerated therein.
The mere allegation that an individual made a secret recording of a private
communication by means of a tape recorder would suffice to constitute an offense
 under Section 1 of R.A. 4200. As the Solicitor General pointed out in his
COMMENT before the respondent court: "Nowhere (in the said law) is it required
that before one can be regarded as a violator, the nature of the conversation, as
well as its communication to a third person should be professed."

On the matter of recorded conversation as evidence

In the case of Salcedo-Ortanez vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 110662, 4 August
1994, in a civil case for annulment of marriage on the basis of psychological
incapacity, cassette tapes of telephone conversations were offered into evidence.
The Supreme Court had the occasion on ruling the admissibility of said recordings
and thus:
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 wire tap 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. The
relevant provisions of Rep. Act No. 4200 are as follows:

Sec. 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
communication 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. . . .

Sec. 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance,

purport, or 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.

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.
In the case of Salcedo it was ruled by the Supreme Court that consent as to the
recording of the conversation is necessary to render such recordings as admissible.
Establishing such clear intent is mandatory under Republic Act No. 4200.