This case discusses the statutory construction of RA 4200, which prohibits wiretapping and other violations of private communication. The issue is whether RA 4200 applies to the taping of a private conversation by one of the parties. The Supreme Court held that based on the clear language and legislative intent of the statute, RA 4200 prohibits any unauthorized recording of private communications, even if done by a party to the conversation. The language and Congressional records support the view that the law penalizes unauthorized recordings by both parties and third persons. As such, secretly recording a private conversation without consent violates RA 4200.
This case discusses the statutory construction of RA 4200, which prohibits wiretapping and other violations of private communication. The issue is whether RA 4200 applies to the taping of a private conversation by one of the parties. The Supreme Court held that based on the clear language and legislative intent of the statute, RA 4200 prohibits any unauthorized recording of private communications, even if done by a party to the conversation. The language and Congressional records support the view that the law penalizes unauthorized recordings by both parties and third persons. As such, secretly recording a private conversation without consent violates RA 4200.
This case discusses the statutory construction of RA 4200, which prohibits wiretapping and other violations of private communication. The issue is whether RA 4200 applies to the taping of a private conversation by one of the parties. The Supreme Court held that based on the clear language and legislative intent of the statute, RA 4200 prohibits any unauthorized recording of private communications, even if done by a party to the conversation. The language and Congressional records support the view that the law penalizes unauthorized recordings by both parties and third persons. As such, secretly recording a private conversation without consent violates RA 4200.
This case discusses the statutory construction of RA 4200, which prohibits wiretapping and other violations of private communication. The issue is whether RA 4200 applies to the taping of a private conversation by one of the parties. The Supreme Court held that based on the clear language and legislative intent of the statute, RA 4200 prohibits any unauthorized recording of private communications, even if done by a party to the conversation. The language and Congressional records support the view that the law penalizes unauthorized recordings by both parties and third persons. As such, secretly recording a private conversation without consent violates RA 4200.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
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 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:
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 R.A. 4200 entitled, " An Act to Prohibit and Penalized Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations of Private Communication and Other Purposes," provides:
Sec. 1. 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.
The aforestated provision 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 statute's intent to penalize all persons unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the use of the qualifier "any". Consequently, as respondent Court of Appeals 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" 13 under this provision of R.A. 4200.
A perusal of the Senate Congressional Records, moreover, supports the respondent
court's conclusion that in enacting R.A. 4200 our lawmakers indeed contemplated to make illegal, unauthorized tape recording of private conversations or communications taken either by the parties themselves or by third persons.Stat Con Principle: Legislative intent is determined principally from the language of the statute.
The unambiguity of the express words of the provision, taken together with the above- quoted deliberations from the Congressional Record, 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.
Second, 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. 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.
