Scribd
Upload
113 views1 page

RA 4200: Anti-Wiretapping Law Case

Ramirez vs Court of Appeals involved whether RA 4200, the anti-wiretapping law, allows a party to a conversation to tape it without consent from all involved. Socorro Ramirez taped her scolding by Ester Garcia without consent and used it as evidence against Garcia. Garcia charged Ramirez with violating RA 4200. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Garcia, finding that the law makes no distinction between parties and non-parties secretly recording conversations without all parties' consent.

Uploaded by

emdi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
113 views1 page

RA 4200: Anti-Wiretapping Law Case

Ramirez vs Court of Appeals involved whether RA 4200, the anti-wiretapping law, allows a party to a conversation to tape it without consent from all involved. Socorro Ramirez taped her scolding by Ester Garcia without consent and used it as evidence against Garcia. Garcia charged Ramirez with violating RA 4200. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Garcia, finding that the law makes no distinction between parties and non-parties secretly recording conversations without all parties' consent.

Uploaded by

emdi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Ramirez vs Court of Appeals

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.

You might also like