1

G.R. No. 93833 September 28, 1995 RAMIREZ vs CA

SOCORRO D. RAMIREZ, petitioner,
vs.
HONORA!E CO"R# O$ A%%EA!S, &'( ES#ER S. GARCIA, respondents.
A civil case damages was filed by petitioner Socorro D. Ramirez in the Regional Trial Court of uezon City alleging that the private
respondent, !ster S. "arcia, in a confrontation in the latter#s office, allegedly ve$ed, insulted and humiliated her in a %hostile and
furious mood% and in a manner offensive to petitioner#s dignity and personality,% contrary to morals, good customs and public policy.%
1
&n support of her claim, petitioner produced a verbatim transcript of the event and sought moral damages, attorney#s fees and other
e$penses of litigation in the amount of '()*,***.**, in addition to costs, interests and other reliefs awardable at the trial court#s
discretion. The transcript on which the civil case was based was culled from a tape recording of the confrontation made by petitioner.
2
The transcript reads as follows+
'laintiff Soccoro D. Ramirez ,Chuchi- . "ood Afternoon /#am.
Defendant !ster S. "arcia ,!S"- . Ano ba ang nangyari sa #yo, na0alimot 0a na 0ung paano 0a
napunta rito, por0e member 0a na, magsumbong 0a 0ung ano ang gagawin 0o sa #yo.
C12C1& . 3asi, na0a duty a0o noon.
!S" . Tapos iniwan no. ,Sic-
C12C1& . 1indi m#am, pero ilan beses na nila a0ong binali0an, sabing ganoon .
!S" . &to and ,sic- masasabi 0o sa #yo, ayaw 0ung ,sic- mag e$plain 0a, 0asi hanggang )*+**
p.m., 0inabu0asan hindi 0a na pumaso0. 4gayon a0o ang babali0 sa #yo, nag5aaply 0a sa States,
nag5aaply 0a sa review mo, 0ung 0a0ailanganin ang certification mo, 0alimutan mo na 0asi hindi
0a sa a0in ma0a0ahingi.
C12C1& . 1indi /#am. 3asi ang ano 0o talaga noon i5cocontinue 0o up to )*+** p.m.
!S" . Bastos ka, na0alimutan mo na 0ung paano 0a pumaso0 dito sa hotel. /agsumbong 0a sa
2nion 0ung gusto mo. 4a0alimutan mo na 0ung paano 0a na0apaso0 dito %Do you thin0 that on
your own ma0a0apaso0 0a 0ung hindi a0o. 'anunumbyoyan na 0ita ,Sinusumbatan na 0ita-.
C12C1& . &tutuloy 0o na /#am sana ang duty 0o.
!S" . 3aso ilang beses na a0ong binabali0an doon ng mga no ,sic- 0o.
!S" . 4a0alimutan mo na ba 0ung paano 0a pumaso0 sa hotel, 0ung on your own merit alam 0o
naman 0ung gaano 0a %0a bobo% mo. /arami ang nag5aaply alam 0ong hindi 0a papasa.
C12C1& . 3umuha 0ami ng e$am noon.
!S" . 6o, pero hindi 0a papasa.
C12C1& . !h, ba0it a0o ang na0uha ni Dr. Tamayo
!S" . 3u0unin 0a 0asi a0o.
C12C1& . !h, di sana .
!S" . 1uwag mong ipagmala0i na may uta0 0a 0asi wala kang utak. A0ala mo ba ma0u0uha 0a
dito 0ung hindi a0o.
C12C1& . /ag5ee$plain a0o.
!S" . 1uwag na, hindi a0o mag5papa5e$plain sa #yo, ma0aalala 0a 0ung paano 0a puma5rito.
%Putang-ina% sasabi5sabihin mo 0amag5ana0 ng nanay at tatay mo ang mga magulang 0o.
!S" . 7ala na a0ong pa0ialam, dahil nandito 0a sa loob, nasa labas 0a puwede 0a ng hindi
pumaso0, o0ey yan nasaloob 0a umalis 0a doon.
C12C1& . 3asi /#am, binbali0an a0o ng mga taga 2nion.
!S" . 4andiyan na rin a0o, pero huwag mong 0alimutan na hindi 0a ma0a0apaso0 0ung hindi
a0o. 3ung hindi mo 0ini0ilala yan o0ey lang sa a0in, dahil tapos 0a na.
C12C1& . &na5ano 0o m#am na utang na loob.
!S" . 1uwag na lang, hindi mo utang na loob, 0asi 0ung baga sa no, nilapastangan mo a0o.
C12C1& . 'aano 0ita nilapastanganan8
!S" . /abuti pa lumabas 0a na. 1indi na a0o ma0i0ipagusap sa #yo. 9umabas 0a na.
/agsumbong 0a.
3
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 Regional Trial Court of 'asay City for violation of Republic Act :;**, entitled %An Act to
prohibit and penalize wire tapping and other related violations of private communication, and other purposes.% An information
charging petitioner of violation of the said Act, dated 6ctober (, )<== is >uoted herewith+
INFORMATION
The 2ndersigned Assistant City ?iscal Accusses Socorro D. Ramirez of @iolation of Republic Act 4o. :;**,
committed as follows+
That on or about the ;;nd day of ?ebruary, )<==, in 'asay City /etro /anila, 'hilippines, and
within the Aurisdiction of this honorable court, the above5named accused, Socorro D. Ramirez not
being authorized by !ster S. "arcia to record the latter#s conversation with said accused, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with the use of a tape recorder secretly record the
2
said conversation and thereafter communicate in writing the contents of the said recording to other
person.
Contrary to law.
'asay City, /etro /anila, September )(, )<==./AR&A46 /. C24!TA
Asst. City ?iscal
2pon arraignment, in lieu of a plea, petitioner filed a /otion to uash the &nformation on the ground that the facts charged do not
constitute an offense, particularly a violation of R.A. :;**. &n an order /ay B, )<=<, the trial court granted the /otion to uash,
agreeing with petitioner that )- the facts charged do not constitute an offense under R.A. :;**C and that ;- the violation punished by
R.A. :;** refers to a the taping of a communication by a person other than a participant to the communication.
)
?rom the trial court#s 6rder, the private respondent filed a 'etition for Review on Certiorari with this Court, which forthwith referred
the case to the Court of Appeals in a Resolution ,by the ?irst Division- of Dune )<, )<=<.
6n ?ebruary <, )<<*, respondent Court of Appeals promulgated its assailed Decision declaring the trial court#s order of /ay B, )<=<
null and void, and holding that+
ETFhe allegations sufficiently constitute an offense punishable under Section ) of R.A. :;**. &n thus >uashing the
information based on the ground that the facts alleged do not constitute an offense, the respondent Audge acted in
grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari.
5
Conse>uently, on ?ebruary ;), )<<*, petitioner filed a /otion for Reconsideration which respondent Court of Appeals denied in its
Resolution
*
dated Dune )<, )<<*. 1ence, the instant petition.
'etitioner vigorously argues, as her %main and principal issue%
+
that the applicable provision of Republic Act :;** 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.
8
&n relation to this, petitioner
avers that the substance or content of the conversation must be alleged in the &nformation, otherwise the facts charged would not
constitute a violation of R.A. :;**.
9
?inally, petitioner agues that R.A. :;** penalizes the taping of a %private communication,% not a
%private conversation% and that conse>uently, her act of secretly taping her conversation with private respondent was not illegal under
the said act.
1,
7e disagree.
?irst, legislative intent is determined principally from the language of a statute. 7here the language of a statute is clear and
unambiguous, the law is applied according to its e$press terms, and interpretation would be resorted to only where a literal
interpretation would be either impossible
11
or absurb or would lead to an inAustice.
12
Section ) of R.A. :;** entitled, % An Act to 'rohibit and 'enalized 7ire Tapping and 6ther Related @iolations of 'rivate
Communication and 6ther 'urposes,% provides+
Sec. ). &t shall be unlawfull for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or
spo0en word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept,
or record such communication or spo0en word by using a device commonly 0nown as a dictaphone or dictagraph or
detectaphone or wal0ie5tal0ie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described.
The aforestated provision clearly and une>uivocally ma0es 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 ma0es 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 ma0e such recording is underscored by the use of the
>ualifier %any%. Conse>uently, as respondent Court of Appeals correctly concluded, %even a ,person- privy to a communication who
records his private conversation with another without the 0nowledge of the latter ,will- >ualify as a violator%
13
under this provision of
R.A. :;**.
A perusal of the Senate Congressional Records, moreover, supports the respondent court#s conclusion that in enacting R.A. :;** our
lawma0ers indeed contemplated to ma0e illegal, unauthorized tape recording of private conversations or communications ta0en either
by the parties themselves or by third persons. Thus+
$$$ $$$ $$$
Senator TaGada+ That >ualified only %overhear%.
Senator 'adilla+ So that when it is intercepted or recorded, the element of secrecy would not appear to be material.
4ow, suppose, Hour 1onor, the recording is not made by all the parties but by some parties and involved not
criminal cases that would be mentioned under section B but would cover, for e$ample civil cases or special
proceedings whereby a recording is made not necessarily by all the parties but perhaps by some in an effort to show
the intent of the parties because the actuation of the parties prior, simultaneous even subse>uent to the contract or the
act may be indicative of their intention. Suppose there is such a recording, would you say, Hour 1onor, that the
intention is to cover it within the purview of this bill or outside8
Senator TaGada+ That is covered by the purview of this bill, Hour 1onor.
Senator 'adilla+ !ven if the record should be used not in the prosecution of offense but as evidence to be used in
Civil Cases or special proceedings8
Senator TaGada+ That is right. This is a comlete !an on tae recor"e" con#ersations taken without the authori$ation
o% all the arties.
Senator 'adilla+ 4ow, would that be reasonable, your 1onor8
3
Senator TaGada+ & believe it is reasonable because it is not sorting to recor" the o!ser#ation o% one without his
knowing it an" then using it against him. It is not %air, it is not sortsmanlike. &f the purposeC Hour honor, is to record
the intention of the parties. & believe that all the parties should 0now that the observations are being recorded.
Senator 'adilla+ This might reduce the utility of recorders.
Senator TaGada+ 7ell no. ?or e$ample, & was to say that in meetings of the board of directors where a tape recording
is ta0en, there is no obAection to this if all the parties 0now. &t is but fair that the people whose remar0s and
observations are being made should 0now that the observations are being recorded.
Senator 'adilla+ 4ow, & can understand.
Senator TaGada+ That is why when we ta0e statements of persons, we say+ %'lease be informed that whatever you
say here may be used against you.% That is fairness and that is what we demand. 4ow, in spite of that warning, he
ma0es damaging statements against his own interest, well, he cannot complain any more. But i% &ou are going to
take a recor"ing o% the o!ser#ations an" remarks o% a erson without him knowing that it is !eing tae" or recor"e",
without him knowing that what is !eing recor"e" ma& !e use" against him, I think it is un%air.
$$$ $$$ $$$
,Congression Record, @ol. &&&, 4o. B), p. I=:, /arch );, )<(:-
Senator Dio0no+ Do you understand, /r. Senator, that under Section ) of the bill as now worded, i% a art& secretl&
recor"s a u!lic seech, he would be penalized under Section )8 Jecause the speech is public, but the recording is
done secretly.
Senator TaGada+ 7ell, that particular aspect is not contemplated by the bill. It is the communication !etween one
erson an" another erson ' not !etween a seaker an" a u!lic.
$$$ $$$ $$$
,Congressional Record, @ol. &&&, 4o. BB, p. (;(, /arch );, )<(:-
$$$ $$$ $$$
The unambiguity of the e$press words of the provision, ta0en together with the above5>uoted deliberations from the Congressional
Record, therefore plainly supports the view held by the respondent court that the provision see0s to penalize even those privy to the
private communications. 7here the law ma0es no distinctions, one does not distinguish.
Second, the nature of the conversations is immaterial to a violation of the statute. The substance of the same need not be specifically
alleged in the information. 7hat R.A. :;** penalizes are the acts of secretly o#erhearing, interceting or recor"ing private
communications by means of the devices enumerated therein. The mere allegation that an individual made a secret recording of a
private communication by means of a tape recorder would suffice to constitute an offense under Section ) of R.A. :;**. As the
Solicitor "eneral pointed out in his C6//!4T before the respondent court+ %4owhere ,in the said law- is it re>uired that before one
can be regarded as a violator, the nature of the conversation, as well as its communication to a third person should be professed.%
1)
?inally, petitioner#s contention that the phrase %private communication% in Section ) of R.A. :;** does not include %private
conversations% narrows the ordinary meaning of the word %communication% to a point of absurdity. The word communicate comes
from the latin word communicare, meaning %to share or to impart.% &n its ordinary signification, communication connotes the act of
sharing or imparting signification, communication connotes the act of sharing or imparting, as in a con#ersation,
15
or signifies the
%process by which meanings or thoughts are shared between individuals through a common system of symbols ,as language signs or
gestures-%
1*
These definitions are broad enough to include verbal or non5verbal, written or e$pressive communications of %meanings
or thoughts% which are li0ely to include the emotionally5charged e$change, on ?ebruary ;;, )<==, between petitioner and private
respondent, in the privacy of the latter#s office. Any doubts about the legislative body#s meaning of the phrase %private
communication% are, furthermore, put to rest by the fact that the terms %conversation% and %communication% were interchangeably
used by Senator TaGada in his !$planatory 4ote to the bill >uoted below+
&t has been said that innocent people have nothing to fear from their con#ersations being overheard. Jut this
statement ignores the usual nature of con#ersations as well the undeniable fact that most, if not all, civilized people
have some aspects of their lives they do not wish to e$pose. ?ree con#ersations are often characterized by
e$aggerations, obscenity, agreeable falsehoods, and the e$pression of anti5social desires of views not intended to be
ta0en seriously. The right to the ri#ac& o% communication, among others, has e$pressly been assured by our
Constitution. 4eedless to state here, the framers of our Constitution must have recognized the nature of
con#ersations between individuals and the significance of man#s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect.
They must have 0nown that part of the pleasures and satisfactions of life are to be found in the unaudited, and free
e$change of communication between individuals . free from every unAustifiable intrusion by whatever means.
1+
&n (aanan #s. Interme"iate Aellate Court,
18
a case which dealt with the issue of telephone wiretapping, we held that the use of a
telephone e$tension for the purpose of overhearing a private conversation without authorization did not violate R.A. :;** because a
telephone e$tension devise was neither among those %device,s- or arrangement,s-% enumerated therein,
19
following the principle that
%penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the accused.%
2,
The instant case turns on a different note, because the applicable
facts and circumstances pointing to a violation of R.A. :;** suffer from no ambiguity, and the statute itself e$plicitly mentions the
unauthorized %recording% of private communications with the use of tape5recorders as among the acts punishable.
71!R!?6R!, because the law, as applied to the case at bench is clear and unambiguous and leaves us with no discretion, the instant
petition is hereby D!4&!D. The decision appealed from is A??&R/!D. Costs against petitioner.