CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 | DIGESTS | 1D

Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 93833. September 28, 1995

TOPIC : Privacy of Comm. and Correspondence, Anti-Wiretapping Act (RA No. 4200)
Casidsid, C.D.
FACTS:
● PETITION to review a decision of the Court of Appeals.
● Petitioner Socorro D. Ramirez filed a civil case for damages against Private Respondent Ester
S. Garcia, alleging that she vexed, insulted and humiliated her in a confrontation in Garcia's
office.
● As evidence, Ramirez produced a verbatim transcript of the event. The transcript was culled
from a tape recording of the confrontation. The recording was made by Ramirez.
- Remarks: Boss ni Garcia si Ramirez sa hotel. Na-agit si Ramirez kasi in her
perspective, uma-attitude na si Garcia. For the transcript, see pp. 3-4
● As a result of Ramirez's recording of the event, Garcia filed a criminal case before the RTC of
Pasay City for violation of RA 4200.
● Upon arraignment, Ramirez filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the ground that the facts
charged do not constitute a violation of RA 4200. The trial court granted the Motion to Quash,
agreeing with that 1) the facts charged do not constitute an offense under RA 4200; and that 2)
the violation punished by RA 4200 refers to the taping of a communication by a person other
than a participant to the communication.
● Garcia filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with SC and it was referred to CA. CA declared
RTC as null and void, holding that the allegations sufficiently constitute an offense punishable
under Section 1 of RA 4200. CA denied Ramirez's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
Does RA 4200 apply to the taping of a private conversation by one of the parties to the conversation?

PETITIONER (SOCORRO D. RAMIREZ): RESPONDENTS (HONORABLE COURT OF

- The applicable provision of RA 4200 does not
apply to the taping of a private conversation by
one of the parties to the conversation
- The provision merely refers to the unauthorized
taping of a private conversation by a party other
than those involved in the communication
- RA 4200 penalizes the taping of a “private
communication,” not a “private conversation”
and that consequently, her act of secretly taping
her conversation with private respondent was
not illegal under the said act
APPEALS and ESTER S. GARCIA):
- The allegations sufficiently constitute an offense
punishable under Section 1 of RA 4200. In thus
quashing the information based on the ground
that the facts alleged do not constitute an
offense, the respondent judge acted in grave
abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari
- 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

SC RULING (KAPUNAN, J.):

Yes, where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the law is applied according to its
express terms. Section 1* of RA 4200 clearly 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.

In the Senate Congressional Records, Sen. Tañada confirmed that: [RA 4200] is a complete ban on
tape recorded conversations taken without the authorization of all the parties x x x it is reasonable
because it is not sporting to record the observation of one without his knowing it and then using it
against him. It is not fair, it is not sportsmanlike.

Instant petition DENIED. CA decision AFFIRMED.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 | DIGESTS | 1D

ADDITIONAL NOTES:
• RA 4200, 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 detectaphone or walkie-talkie or
tape recorder, or however otherwise described.*
• Senator Tañada: [RA 4200 contemplates] the communication between one person and another
person—not between a speaker and a public.
• The nature of the conversation is immaterial to a violation of the statute. The substance of the same
need not be specifically alleged in the information. What RA 4200 penalizes are the acts of secretly
overhearing, intercepting or recording private communications by means of the devices enumerated
therein.
• In Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, RA 4200 does not apply because object used was a
telephone extension for the purpose of overhearing a private conversation. It is not included in the
devices enumerated in Section 1 of RA 4200. The decision followed the principle that “penal statutes
must be construed strictly in favor of the accused.”