Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 177 views

    Ramirez v. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Nicko
    1) Petitioner secretly recorded a confrontation with private respondent in the latter's office using a tape recorder. Respondent then filed criminal charges against petitioner for violating Republic Act 4200, which prohibits wiretapping and other violations of private communications. 2) The trial court granted petitioner's motion to quash the information but the Court of Appeals overturned this, holding the allegations constituted an offense under the law. 3) Petitioner argued the law does not apply when one party to a private conversation records it secretly. However, the Supreme Court ruled the nature of the conversations is immaterial and the statute penalizes any unauthorized secret recordings of private communications using the devices listed. The petition was denied and the decision affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ramirez v. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Nicko
    177 views2 pages
    1) Petitioner secretly recorded a confrontation with private respondent in the latter's office using a tape recorder. Respondent then filed criminal charges against petitioner for violating Republic Act 4200, which prohibits wiretapping and other violations of private communications. 2) The trial court granted petitioner's motion to quash the information but the Court of Appeals overturned this, holding the allegations constituted an offense under the law. 3) Petitioner argued the law does not apply when one party to a private conversation records it secretly. However, the Supreme Court ruled the nature of the conversations is immaterial and the statute penalizes any unauthorized secret recordings of private communications using the devices listed. The petition was denied and the decision affirmed.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Petitioner secretly recorded a confrontation with private respondent in the latter's office using a tape recorder. Respondent then filed criminal charges against petitioner for violating Republic Act 4200, which prohibits wiretapping and other violations of private communications. 2) The trial court granted petitioner's motion to quash the information but the Court of Appeals overturned this, holding the allegations constituted an offense under the law. 3) Petitioner argued the law does not apply when one party to a private conversation records it secretly. However, the Supreme Court ruled the nature of the conversations is immaterial and the statute penalizes any unauthorized secret recordings of private communications using the devices listed. The petition was denied and the decision affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    177 views2 pages

    Ramirez v. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Nicko
    1) Petitioner secretly recorded a confrontation with private respondent in the latter's office using a tape recorder. Respondent then filed criminal charges against petitioner for violating Republic Act 4200, which prohibits wiretapping and other violations of private communications. 2) The trial court granted petitioner's motion to quash the information but the Court of Appeals overturned this, holding the allegations constituted an offense under the law. 3) Petitioner argued the law does not apply when one party to a private conversation records it secretly. However, the Supreme Court ruled the nature of the conversations is immaterial and the statute penalizes any unauthorized secret recordings of private communications using the devices listed. The petition was denied and the decision affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Ramirez v.

    Court of Appeals
    G.R. No. 93833, September 28, 1995

    Facts:
    A civil case damages was filed by petitioner Socorro D. Ramirez in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
    City alleging that the private respondent, Ester S. 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 which was based on a culled tape
    recording of the confrontation made by petitioner.

    Respondent filed a criminal case before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City for violation of Republic
    Act 4200 (“An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire-Tapping and Other Related Violations of Private
    Communication, and Other Purposes”).
    Petitioner filed a motion to quash the information. The trial court granted the said motion. Respondent
    then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, which referred the case to the Court
    of Appeals in a resolution. The Court of Appeals promulgated its decision declaring the trial court’s order
    as null and void, holding that the allegations sufficiently constitute an offense punishable under Section 1
    of R.A. 4200.
    Petitioner then petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner contended that her main and
    principal issue does not apply to the taping of a private conversation by one of the parties to the
    conversation. She also argued that the provision merely refers to the unauthorized taping of a private
    conversation by a party other than those involved in the communication. Further, petitioner argued 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.

    Issue:
    Whether or not 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

    Ruling:
    The nature of the conversations is immaterial to a violation of the statute. 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.
    Sec. 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.
    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. 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".
    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 denied. The decision appealed from is affirmed.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy