SECTION 3 The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when

public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section
shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
CASE
1. RAMIREZ V.
COURT OF
APPEALS

FACTS
-

Ester Garcia humiliated Socorro

Ramirez in a hostile and furious
mood, in a manner offensive to
the petitioners dignity. In support
to the petitioners claim, she
produced a verbatim transcript of
the event and sought for
damages. She secretly taped their
conversation.

ISSUE/S

Does the antiwiretapping law, RA

4200, allow parties
to a conversation to
tape it without the
consent of all those
involved?
Whether the party
sought to be
penalized by the
Anti-wire tapping law
ought to be a party
other than or
different from those
involved in the
private
communication

HELD
PETITION DENIED
- RA 4200 provides that "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."
- The 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 nature of a conversation is
immaterial to a violation of the
statute.
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.
2. ZULUETA VS.
COURT OF
APPEALS

Cecilia Zulueta, wife of Dr. Alfredo

Martin, entered the clinic of her
husband with the presence of her
mother, a driver, and Martins
Secretary. Petitioner Zulueta
forcibly opened the drawers and
cabinet and took 157 documents
consisting of private
correspondence between Martin
and alleged paramours, greeting
cards, cancelled checks, diaries,
Dr. Martins passport, and
photographs.
The documents and papers were
seized for use in evidence in a
case for legal separation and for
disqualification from the practice
of medicine which Zulueta had
filed against her husband.

Whether the
injunction declaring
the privacy of
communication and
correspondence to
be inviolable apply
even to the spouse
of the aggrieved
party.

- The documents and papers in

question are inadmissible in
evidence.
- A person by contracting marriage
does not shed his integrity or his
right to privacy as an individual and
the constitutional protection is ever
available to him even after marriage.
The intimacies between husband
and wife do not justify any one of
them in breaking the drawers and
cabinets of the other.
- The only exception to the
prohibition in the Constitution is if
there is a "lawful order [from a] court
or when public safety or order
requires otherwise, as prescribed by
law." Any violation of this provision
renders the evidence obtained
inadmissible "for any purpose in any
proceeding."