RAMIREZ vs.
CA
G. R. No. 93833
September 25 1995
DOCTRINE: “Private communication” in Section 1 of RA 4200 is deemed to include “private
conversations.”
FACTS:
A civil case for damages was filed by petitioner Socorro Ramirez in the RTC of Quezon City alleging that
the private respondent, Ester Garcia, in a confrontation in the latter’s office, allegedly vexed, insulted
and humiliated her in a “hostile and furious mood” and in a manner offensive to petitioner’s dignity and
personality, “contrary to morals, good customs and public policy.”
In support of her claim, petitioner produced a verbatim transcript of the event. The transcript on which
the civil case was based was culled from a tape recording of the confrontation made by petitioner.
As a result of petitioner’s recording of the event and alleging that the said act of secretly taping the
confrontation was illegal, private respondent filed a criminal case before the RTC of Pasay City for
violation of RA 4200, entitled “An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wiretapping and Other Related Violations
of Private Communication, and Other Purposes.”
Upon arraignment, in lieu of a plea, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the ground
that the facts charged do not constitute an offense particularly a violation of RA 4200. The trial court
granted the Motion to Quash, agreeing with petitioner.
From the trial court’s Order, the private respondent filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with this
Court, which forthwith referred the case to the CA.
Respondent Court of Appeals promulgated its assailed Decision declaring the trial court’s order null and
void.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 4200 applies to taping of a private conversation by one of the parties to a
conversation.
HELD:
The Court ruled that the language of the law is clear and unambiguous. The provision clearly makes it
illegal for ANY person, NOT AUTHORIZED BY ALL 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. The statute's intent to
penalize all persons unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the use of the qualifier
"any".
The nature of the conversations is immaterial to a violation of the statute. The substance of the same
need not be specifically alleged in the information. The mere allegation that an individual made a secret
recording of a private communication by means of a tape recorder would suffice to constitute an
offense under Section 1 of R.A. 4200.
Petitioner's contention that the phrase "private communication" in Section 1 of R.A. 4200 does not
include "private conversations" narrows the ordinary meaning of the word "communication" to a
point of absurdity. In its ordinary signification, communication connotes the act of sharing or
imparting signification, communication connotes the act of sharing or imparting, as in a conversation,
or signifies the "process by which meanings or thoughts are shared between individuals through a
common system of symbols (as language signs or gestures)."
These definitions are broad enough to include verbal or non-verbal, written or expressive
communications of "meanings or thoughts" which are likely to include the emotionally-charged
exchange between petitioner and private respondent, in the privacy of the latter's office.
In Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, a case which dealt with the issue of telephone wiretapping,
we held that the use of a telephone extension for the purpose of overhearing a private conversation
without authorization did not violate R.A. 4200 because a telephone extension devise was neither
among those "device(s) or arrangement(s)" enumerated, following the principle that "penal statutes
must be construed strictly in favor of the accused."
In this case, the use of tape recorder falls under the devices enumerated in the law (Dictaphone,
Dictagraph, Detectaphone, Walkie-talkie, and Tape recorder).Therefore, the act of recording through
the tape constitutes an offense.
The instant case turns on a different note, because the applicable facts and circumstances pointing to a
violation of R.A. 4200 suffer from no ambiguity, and the statute itself explicitly mentions the
unauthorized "recording" of private communications with the use of tape-recorders as among the acts
punishable.
