Ramirez vs.

Court of Appeals
248 SCRA 590 (1995)

FACTS:

Ester Garcia filed a criminal case for violation of R.A. No.

4200 (Anti-WiretappingAct) against Socorro Ramirez, for
secretly taping their confrontation. Socorro filed a Motion to
Quash the Information, which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Pasay granted, agreeing that the facts charged did not constitute
an offense under R.A. No. 4200 since the law refers to the taping
of a communication by a person other than a participant
to the communication. After which, Ester filed a petition for
review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the
ruling of the lower court. Hence, Socorro filed this instant
petition.

ISSUES:

Whether t h e s u b s t an c e or contents o f t he
c o n ve r s at i o n m u s t b e al l e ge d i n t h e information;

RULING:

R.A. No. 4200 applies to recordings by one of the parties

to the conversation.

Section 1 of the Act clearly and unequivocally

makes it illegal for any person, not
a u t h o r i ze d b y al l p ar t i e s t o a n y p r i va t e c o m m u n i c a t i
o n t o s e c r e t l y r e c o r d s u c h 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, the CA was correct in
concluding that “even a person privy to a communication, who
records his private conversation with another without knowledge
of the latter, will qualify as a violator under R.A. No.
4200.” A perusal of the Senate Congressional Records,
moreover, supports such conclusion.