[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
199 views1 page

Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA

This case involves a petition for annulment of marriage filed by Rafael Ortanez against Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez on grounds of lack of marriage license and psychological incapacity. Rafael presented evidence in court including three cassette tapes of phone calls between Teresita and unidentified people. However, the tapes were made without Teresita's consent after Rafael had his friends wiretap his home phone. The Supreme Court ruled the tapes inadmissible, as wiretapping and recording phone calls without all parties' consent is prohibited by law. The lower courts failed to consider this law in admitting the tapes. The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeals decision and declared the tapes inad

Uploaded by

Anonymous mv3Y0Kg
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
199 views1 page

Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA

This case involves a petition for annulment of marriage filed by Rafael Ortanez against Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez on grounds of lack of marriage license and psychological incapacity. Rafael presented evidence in court including three cassette tapes of phone calls between Teresita and unidentified people. However, the tapes were made without Teresita's consent after Rafael had his friends wiretap his home phone. The Supreme Court ruled the tapes inadmissible, as wiretapping and recording phone calls without all parties' consent is prohibited by law. The lower courts failed to consider this law in admitting the tapes. The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeals decision and declared the tapes inad

Uploaded by

Anonymous mv3Y0Kg
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

TERESITA SALCEDO-ORTANEZ,

- versus - COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ROMEO F. ZAMORA, Presiding Judge, Br.


94, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City and RAFAEL S. ORTANEZ
G.R. No. 110662 August 4, 1994

Facts
Private respondent Rafael S. Ortanez filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City a complaint for annulment of marriage with damages against petitioner
Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez, 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.

Petitioner submitted her Objection/Comment to private respondent's oral offer of


evidence; on the same day, the trial court admitted all of private respondent's offered
evidence. A motion for reconsideration from petitioner was denied. A petition
for certiorari was then filed by petitioner in the Court of Appeals assailing the admission
in evidence of the aforementioned cassette tapes. The Court of Appeals rendered a
decision against the petitioner, stating that: the tape recordings are not
inadmissible per se and the petition for certiorari is notoriously inappropriate to rectify a
supposed error in admitting evidence adduced during trial. Hence, this present petition.

Issue
Whether or not the tapes presented are admissible before the court.

Ruling
No, the tapes are not admissible in court. 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.

Clearly, the 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. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby
SET ASIDE. The subject cassette tapes are declared inadmissible in evidence.

You might also like