Ramirez vs.

Court of Appeals
Posted on February 11, 2009 by danabatnag
Rule involved: Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos. Where the law makes no distinctions,
one does not distinguish.
Issue: Does the anti-wiretapping law, RA 4200, allow parties to a conversation to tape it without the
consent of all those involved?
What was construed:
The word any in Sec. 1 of RA 4200: 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.
Facts of the case: Soccoro Ramirez was scolded by Ester Garcia inside Garcias office. Ramirez taped the
conversation and later filed charges against Garcia for insulting and humiliating her, using as evidence the
transcript of the conversation, based on the tape recording.
Garcia filed criminal charges against Ramirez for violating the anti-wire tapping act, because it was done
without her knowledge and consent. Ramirez claimed that what the law forbids is for other parties, who are
not part of the conversation, to record it using the instruments enumerated in the law (there was an earlier
case that was dismissed because the instrument used was not mentioned in the law).
The trial court ruled in favor of Ramirez, granting a motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do
not constitute an offense, but the Court of Appeals reversed it.
Ratio: First, the court noted that the provision makes it clear that it is illegal for any person to secretly
record a conversation, unless authorized by all parties involved.
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 congressional records also showed that the intent was that permission must be sought from all parties
in the conversation. This is a complete ban on tape recorded conversations taken without the authorization
of all the parties, Sen. Tanada said during the deliberations.
The provision seeks to penalize even those privy to the private communications. Where the law makes no
distinctions, one does not distinguish.
Decision: Petition denied. Decision of CA affirmed. Costs against Ramirez.

Case Digests: Statutory Construction

Socorro Ramirez vs Court of Appeals
248 SCRA 590
G. R. No. 93833
September 25 1995

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 latters office, allegedly vexed, insulted and
humiliated her in a hostile and furious mood and in a manner offensive to petitioners 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 petitioners 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 courts 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 courts order null and
void.
Issue:
W/N RA 4200 applies to taping of a private conversation by one of the parties to a conversation.
Held:
Legislative intent is determined principally from the language of a statute. Where the language of a statute
is clear and unambiguous, the law is applied according to its express terms, and interpretation would be
resorted to only where a literal interpretation would be either impossible or absurd or would lead to an
injustice.
Section 1 of RA 4200 clearly and unequivocally 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 statutes intent to
penalize all persons unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the use of qualifier any.
Consequently, as respondent CA correctly concluded, 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
under this provision of RA 4200.
The unambiguity of the express words of the provision therefore plainly supports the view held by the
respondent court that the provision seeks to penalize even those privy to the private communications.
Where the law makes no distinctions, one does not distinguish.
Stat Con Principle: Legislative intent is determined principally from the language of the statute.
Legal Maxims: Verba Legis (the statute must be interpreted literally if the language of the statute is plain
and free from ambiguity)

The Anti-Wiretapping Law

Republic Act 4200 is probably the most quoted law nowadays. Thus, it is worthy to examine the said law
and discuss its pertinent provisions.
Section 1 of R.A. 4200 entitled, An Act to Prohibit and Penalized Wire Tapping and Other Related
Violations of Private Communication and Other Purposes, provides that it shall be unlawfull 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.

In Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, [G.R. No. 93833 (Sept.

28, 1995)], petitioner Ramirez vigorously argues, that
the applicable provision of Republic Act 4200 does not
apply to the taping of a private conversation by one of
the parties to the conversation. She conteThe AntiWiretapping Law
Republic Act 4200 is probably the most quoted law nowadays. Thus, it is worthy to examine the said law
and discuss its pertinent provisions.
Section 1 of R.A. 4200 entitled, An Act to Prohibit and Penalized Wire Tapping and Other Related
Violations of Private Communication and Other Purposes, provides that it shall be unlawfull 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.
In Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, [G.R. No. 93833 (Sept. 28, 1995)], petitioner Ramirez vigorously
argues, that the applicable provision of Republic Act 4200 does not apply to the taping of a private
conversation by one of the parties to the conversation. She contends that the provision merely refers to the
unauthorized taping of a private conversation by a party other than those involved in the communication. In
relation to this, petitioner avers that the substance or content of the conversation must be alleged in the
Information, otherwise the facts charged would not constitute a violation of R.A. 4200. Finally, petitioner
agues that R.A. 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.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the petitioner. It stated that Section 1 of R.A. 4200 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 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 statutes intent to penalize all persons
unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the use of the qualifier any. Consequently,
.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 under this provision of R.A. 4200.

The Supreme Court held further that the nature of the conversations is immaterial to a violation of the
statute. It held that:
The substance of the same need not be specifically alleged in the information. What R.A. 4200 penalizes
are the acts of secretly overhearing, intercepting or recording private communications by means of the
devices enumerated therein. 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. As the Solicitor General pointed out in his COMMENT before the respondent court: Nowhere (in
the said law) is it required that before one can be regarded as a violator, the nature of the conversation, as
well as its communication to a third person should be professed.
Curiously, in Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, [145 SCRA 112 (1986)], a case which dealt
with the issue of telephone wiretapping, the Supreme Court 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 therein,
following the principle that penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the accused.
WHEN IS WIRETAPPING ALLOWED?
Under Section 3 of R.A. 4200, a peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the Court,
may execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the two preceding sections in cases involving
the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the
high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code,
and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing espionage and other offenses against
national security. Such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the
examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and a showing:
(1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been
committed or is being committed or is about to be committed: Provided, however, That in cases involving
the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to sedition, such authority shall be granted only upon prior
proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case may be, have actually been or are being committed; (2)
that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of any
person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any of such crimes; and (3) that there are no other
means readily available for obtaining such evidence.
INADMISSIBILITY OF WIRETAPPED EVIDENCE
Section 4 of R.A. 4200 declares that any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents,
substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained
obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible
in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.
nds that the provision merely refers to the unauthorized taping of a private conversation by a party other
than those involved in the communication. In relation to this, petitioner states that the substance or content
of the conversation must be alleged in the Information, otherwise the facts charged would not constitute a
violation of R.A. 4200. Finally, petitioner agues that R.A. 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.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the petitioner. It stated that Section 1 of R.A. 4200 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 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 statutes intent to penalize all persons
unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the use of the qualifier any. Consequently,
.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 under this provision of R.A. 4200.
The Supreme Court held further that the nature of the conversations is immaterial to a violation of the
statute. It held that:
The substance of the same need not be specifically alleged in the information. What R.A. 4200 penalizes
are the acts of secretly overhearing, intercepting or recording private communications by means of the
devices enumerated therein. 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. As the Solicitor General pointed out in his COMMENT before the respondent court: Nowhere (in
the said law) is it required that before one can be regarded as a violator, the nature of the conversation, as
well as its communication to a third person should be professed.
Curiously, in Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, [145 SCRA 112 (1986)], a case which dealt
with the issue of telephone wiretapping, the Supreme Court 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 therein,
following the principle that penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the accused.
WHEN IS WIRETAPPING ALLOWED?
Under Section 3 of R.A. 4200, a peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the Court,
may execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the two preceding sections in cases involving
the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the
high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code,
and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing espionage and other offenses against
national security. Such written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the
examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and a showing:
(1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has been
committed or is being committed or is about to be committed: Provided, however, That in cases involving
the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to sedition, such authority shall be granted only upon prior
proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case may be, have actually been or are being committed; (2)
that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the conviction of any
person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any of such crimes; and (3) that there are no other
means readily available for obtaining such evidence.
INADMISSIBILITY OF WIRETAPPED EVIDENCE
Section 4 of R.A. 4200 declares that any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents,
substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained
obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible
in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.