Practice question
A private individual secretly records a covered private conversation without all-party authorization, and the act is stipulated to violate Republic Act No. 4200 with no exception. In a later quasi-judicial hearing, the proponent invokes the absence of government participation as conclusive proof that no exclusionary rule can apply. Which response is correct?
- No evidence rule can ever regulate private interceptions.
- Only uniformed police can violate Republic Act No. 4200.
- The statutory exclusion must still be considered; its prohibited-manner and forum terms are not erased merely because the recorder was private.
- A private recorder automatically becomes exempt by offering the tape through a lawyer.
- The quasi-judicial body may repeal the statute through an evidence order.
Legal references
- Republic Act No. 4200, Sections 1 and 4: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1965/ra_4200_1965.html
- Ramirez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93833, September 28, 1995, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/sep1995/gr_93833_1995.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.