In short: Guatemala’s Constitution (Art. 24) guarantees the secrecy of phone communications and says information obtained in violation of it is not evidence in court. The Código Penal (Art. 219) fines anyone who, using fraudulent means, intercepts, copies or records a call Q100 to Q1,000; that becomes six months to three years in prison if the offender publishes it or exploits a position inside the company (Art. 220). Capturing conversations or images that attack someone’s sexual intimacy without consent, to harm their dignity, is a separate crime carrying one to three years (Art. 190). None of the texts reviewed here says whether you may record your own call. This is general information, not legal advice.
This page answers one question: what Guatemalan legal texts say about recording calls, conversations and people, and where they stop. It does not tell you what to record or how. Article text is quoted in the original Spanish, with an English gloss outside the quotation marks.
The answers, side by side
| Situation | Rule | What the text covers | Penalty in the text |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercepting, copying or recording a call by fraudulent means | Código Penal, Art. 219 | Anyone who, using fraudulent means, intercepts, copies or records telephone communications | Fine of Q100 to Q1,000 |
| Opening or learning the contents of correspondence or phone dispatches addressed to someone else | Código Penal, Art. 217 | Done deliberately or to discover another person’s secrets; correspondence not addressed to you | Fine of Q100 to Q1,000 |
| Either of the above, plus publishing it or acting from a post inside the company | Código Penal, Art. 220 (as reformed by Decreto 31-2012) | Four aggravating cases | Six months to three years in prison |
| Publishing a private recording or photo you lawfully hold | Código Penal, Art. 222 | Without due authorisation, when it causes or could cause harm | Fine of Q200 to Q2,000 |
| Capturing conversations or images that attack sexual intimacy | Código Penal, Art. 190 (as reformed by Decreto 9-2009) | Without the person’s consent, to harm their dignity | One to three years; spreading it, two to four |
| Using information obtained in violation of Art. 24 in court | Constitution, Art. 24 | Carries no weight and is not evidence | — |
| State phone tapping | Constitution, Art. 24; Decreto 21-2006, Arts. 48-49 | Order of a competent judge; only the Ministerio Público can request it | — |
Calls: the guarantee and the offence
The starting point is the Constitution. Art. 24 reads: “La correspondencia de toda persona, sus documentos y libros son inviolables. Sólo podrán revisarse o incautarse, en virtud de resolución firme dictada por juez competente y con las formalidades legales. Se garantiza el secreto de la correspondencia y de las comunicaciones telefónicas, radiofónicas, cablegráficas y otros productos de la tecnología moderna.” In English: everyone’s correspondence, documents and books are inviolable; they may be reviewed or seized only under a final order of a competent judge; and the secrecy of correspondence and of telephone, radio and cable communications and other products of modern technology is guaranteed.
The Código Penal turns that guarantee into three offences in its chapter on the violation and disclosure of secrets:
- Art. 217, violation of correspondence and private papers. Deliberately or to discover another person’s secrets, opening correspondence, a sealed envelope, or telegraph, telephone or other dispatches not addressed to you, or learning their contents without opening them: fine of Q100 to Q1,000.
- Art. 218, taking, diverting or suppressing correspondence. Wrongfully seizing that correspondence or any other private paper, suppressing it or diverting it: fine of Q100 to Q1,000.
- Art. 219, interception or reproduction of communications. The full text: “Quien, valiéndose de medios fraudulentos interceptare, copiare o grabare comunicaciones televisadas, radiales, telegráficas, telefónicas u otras semejantes o de igual naturaleza, o las impida o interrumpa, será sancionado con multa de cien a un mil quetzales.” In English: whoever, using fraudulent means, intercepts, copies or records television, radio, telegraph, telephone or similar communications, or prevents or interrupts them, is fined one hundred to one thousand quetzales.
Art. 220, in the wording given to it by Art. 11 of Decreto 31-2012, replaces those fines with six months to three years in prison in four cases: the offender takes advantage of being a manager, director, administrator or employee of the office, company or entity concerned; the matter is official; the offender makes the information public by any means; or the offender is a public official or employee.
What the text does not settle
Art. 219 turns on two words: “medios fraudulentos” (fraudulent means). The article does not define a fraudulent means, and neither the Constitution nor the Código Penal distinguishes between a participant who records a call and a third party who intercepts it. Outside Art. 190 (sexual intimacy), neither text makes the other party’s consent the test for whether a recording is lawful. We cite no Corte de Constitucionalidad ruling on private recordings, because we did not capture one with its text.
That is why this page does not claim that recording your own calls is legal, or that it is illegal. It reports the words of the law and leaves the specific case to whoever has to decide it.
Can a recording be used as evidence?
The Constitution answers part of it, in the last paragraph of the same Art. 24: “Los documentos o informaciones obtenidas con violación de este artículo no producen fe ni hacen prueba en juicio.” In English: documents or information obtained in violation of this article carry no weight and are not evidence in court.
The consequence is clear (not evidence); the condition is open (that the recording was obtained in violation of Art. 24). Which recordings meet that condition is decided by the judge in each case.
Recording or photographing a person
The Código Penal has two separate articles here, and they should not be blended.
Art. 190, violation of sexual intimacy (as reformed by Art. 34 of Decreto 9-2009). It is the only article on this subject built on consent: “Quien por cualquier medio sin el consentimiento de la persona, atentare contra su intimidad sexual y se apodere o capte mensajes, conversaciones, comunicaciones, sonidos, imágenes en general o imágenes de su cuerpo, para afectar su dignidad, será sancionado con prisión de uno a tres años.” In English: whoever, by any means and without the person’s consent, attacks their sexual intimacy by taking or capturing messages, conversations, communications, sounds, images in general or images of their body, to harm their dignity, faces one to three years in prison. The same article adds two to four years for anyone who spreads, reveals or hands the material to third parties.
Art. 222, improper publication. This one punishes publishing, not recording: “Quien, hallándose legítimamente en posesión de correspondencia, de papeles o de grabaciones, fotografías no destinadas a la publicidad, los hiciere públicos, sin la debida autorización, aunque le hubieren sido dirigidos, cuando el hecho cause o pudiere causar perjuicio, será sancionado con multa de doscientos a dos mil quetzales.” In English: whoever lawfully holds correspondence, papers, recordings or photographs not intended for publication and makes them public without due authorisation — even if they were addressed to them — is fined Q200 to Q2,000 when doing so causes or could cause harm. Both conditions matter: the material was not meant for publication, and publishing it causes or could cause harm.
For photographing or filming police officers or soldiers specifically, see the separate page: can you photograph police and the military in Guatemala?.
At work: cameras with audio, phones and polygraphs
We searched the text of the Código de Trabajo (the Organismo Judicial CENADOJ edition updated to 30 April 2014) for cámara, celular, intimidad and polígrafo. None appears. What follows are the articles that do exist and touch the subject; they are not an answer to each question.
Cameras with audio. The Labor Code does not regulate them. The Art. 24 guarantee of the secrecy of communications and Art. 219 of the Código Penal apply to everyone, with no carve-out for employers. Art. 220, above, aggravates the penalty when the person behind an Art. 219 interception or recording takes advantage of being a manager, director, administrator or employee of the company.
Your phone. Art. 62 of the Labor Code lists what employers are prohibited from doing, and literal (e) reads: “Retener por su sola voluntad las herramientas u objetos del trabajador sea como garantía o a título de indemnización o de cualquier otro no traslativo de propiedad”. In English: withholding, on their own say-so, the worker’s tools or belongings as a guarantee, as compensation or on any other basis that does not transfer ownership. In the other direction, Art. 60 lets the company’s internal work rules include conduct, presentation and personal-bearing standards as the nature of the work requires, and Art. 77(h) makes breaching duly approved internal rules a just cause for dismissal once the employer has warned the worker once in writing. The texts do not say how those articles apply to a particular phone.
Checking a worker’s phone or email. Art. 24 protects the correspondence of every person and telephone communications. Art. 64(d) prohibits the worker from using tools or equipment supplied by the employer for purposes other than those they are intended for. The text does not distinguish between a worker’s own phone and a company one.
Polygraphs. The word does not appear in the Constitution, the Código Penal or the Código de Trabajo. We did not review other instruments, such as security-force career laws. This page does not claim polygraphs are permitted or prohibited.
If your situation is ending a job over any of this, our page on how to resign in Guatemala carries the Labor Code notice periods and deadlines.
State interception
For the State, Art. 24 of the Constitution requires a final order of a competent judge. The Ley contra la Delincuencia Organizada (Decreto 21-2006) governs interception for the organised-crime offences it lists: Art. 48 allows communications to be intercepted, recorded and reproduced “con autorización judicial” (with judicial authorisation), and Art. 49 makes Ministerio Público prosecutors the only officials competent to ask the judge for that authorisation. We cite the 2006 text published by the Organismo Judicial and did not review later amendments.
The parents-and-guardians exception
Art. 221 of the Código Penal reads: “Lo preceptuado en los artículos 217, 218 y 219 de este capítulo, no es aplicable a los padres respecto a sus hijos menores de edad, ni a los tutores o protutores respecto a las personas que tengan bajo su custodia o guardia.” In English: Arts. 217, 218 and 219 do not apply to parents with respect to their minor children, nor to guardians with respect to people in their custody. The exception is limited to those three articles.
Where a complaint is filed
Arts. 190 and 217 to 222 are offences under the Código Penal. Our guide to filing a criminal complaint with the Ministerio Público covers the channels.
Sources
- Constitución Política de la República de Guatemala (1985), Art. 24. Organization of American States copy, oas.org, retrieved 2026-09-30. That copy tags the articles changed by Acuerdo Legislativo 18-93 as reformed; Art. 24 carries no such tag.
- Código Penal, Decreto 17-73, Arts. 190, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221 and 222. Reform-annotated consolidated copy published by Berger Pemueller, bergerpemueller.com, retrieved 2026-09-30. It marks Art. 190 as reformed by Decreto 9-2009 and Art. 220 by Decreto 31-2012; Arts. 217, 218, 219, 221 and 222 carry no reform note.
- Código de Trabajo, Decreto 1441, Arts. 60, 62, 64 and 77. Organismo Judicial (CENADOJ) edition updated to 30 April 2014, ww2.oj.gob.gt, retrieved 2026-09-30.
- Ley contra la Delincuencia Organizada, Decreto 21-2006, Arts. 48 and 49. Text published by the Organismo Judicial, ww2.oj.gob.gt, retrieved 2026-09-30.
General information current to 2026-09-30, reporting the text of the instruments cited. Not legal advice, and it does not tell you what you may record. For a specific case, consult a Guatemalan lawyer (abogado colegiado). En español: ¿Es legal grabar llamadas en Guatemala?
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to record a phone call in Guatemala?
Two texts answer. Art. 24 of the Constitution reads: ‘Se garantiza el secreto de la correspondencia y de las comunicaciones telefónicas, radiofónicas, cablegráficas y otros productos de la tecnología moderna.’ — the secrecy of correspondence and of telephone, radio and cable communications and other products of modern technology is guaranteed. Art. 219 of the Código Penal fines anyone who, ‘valiéndose de medios fraudulentos’ (using fraudulent means), intercepts, copies or records telephone communications Q100 to Q1,000. Neither text distinguishes between a person recording their own conversation and a third party intercepting it, and we cite no court ruling that settles it, so this page does not tell you which side of that line you are on.
Can a call recording be used as evidence in a Guatemalan court?
The last paragraph of Art. 24 of the Constitution reads: ‘Los documentos o informaciones obtenidas con violación de este artículo no producen fe ni hacen prueba en juicio.’ — documents or information obtained in violation of the article carry no weight and are not evidence in court. Whether a given recording was obtained in violation of Art. 24 is for the judge in each case; the article contains no list.
Is it a crime to record someone without their consent in Guatemala?
Only one article on this subject turns on consent: Art. 190 of the Código Penal, violation of sexual intimacy. It punishes with one to three years in prison anyone who, without the person’s consent, attacks their sexual intimacy and seizes or captures messages, conversations, communications, sounds, images in general or images of their body, to harm their dignity, and with two to four years anyone who spreads that material. Separately, Art. 222 fines Q200 to Q2,000 anyone who, lawfully holding them, publishes recordings or photographs not intended for publication, without due authorisation, when it causes or could cause harm.
Can my employer put cameras with audio in the workplace?
The Código de Trabajo does not mention cameras: the words cámara, celular, intimidad and polígrafo do not appear in its text (CENADOJ edition updated to 30 April 2014). What applies to everyone is the Constitution’s Art. 24 guarantee of the secrecy of communications and Art. 219 of the Código Penal. Art. 220 raises the penalty for Arts. 217 to 219 to six months to three years in prison when the offender takes advantage of being a manager, director, administrator or employee of the company, or makes the information public.
Can my employer take my phone at work?
The Labor Code never names the phone. Art. 62(e) prohibits employers from ‘Retener por su sola voluntad las herramientas u objetos del trabajador sea como garantía o a título de indemnización o de cualquier otro no traslativo de propiedad’ — withholding the worker’s tools or belongings on their own say-so, as a guarantee, as compensation or on any other basis that does not transfer ownership. Art. 60 lets the internal work rules set staff conduct standards. How the two articles combine for a particular phone is not stated in the text, and this page does not resolve it.
Are polygraph tests legal in Guatemala?
We searched three texts for the word: the Constitution, the Código Penal and the Código de Trabajo. It appears in none of them. We did not review other instruments (security-force career laws, for example), so this page does not claim polygraphs are allowed or banned — only that those three texts do not regulate them.
Can the police tap my phone in Guatemala?
Art. 24 of the Constitution says correspondence, documents and books ‘Sólo podrán revisarse o incautarse, en virtud de resolución firme dictada por juez competente y con las formalidades legales.’ — they can be reviewed or seized only by a final order of a competent judge. For organised-crime offences, Art. 48 of the Ley contra la Delincuencia Organizada (Decreto 21-2006) allows communications to be intercepted, recorded and reproduced with judicial authorisation, and Art. 49 makes Ministerio Público prosecutors the only officials who can ask the judge for it.
Can parents check their children's communications?
Art. 221 of the Código Penal says Arts. 217, 218 and 219 do not apply to parents with respect to their minor children, nor to guardians with respect to the people in their custody. The exception covers those three articles only, not Art. 190.
