Recitready Digests

HOME CASES LAWS REVIEWERS AUDIO FILES LEGAL MAXIMS LEGAL TERMS Search...
Go

_
Home » Anti-Wire Tapping Law » Bill of Rights » Case digest philippines » POPULAR POSTS
Exclusionary Rule » Statcon » Statutory Construction
» Ramirez v. CA, G.R. No. 93833,
248 SCRA 590, September 28, 1995 [FULL CASE DIGEST]
People v. Evaristo, G.R. No. 93828, 216
SCRA 431, December 11, 1992 [FULL
ANTI-WIRE TAPPING LAW
BILL OF RIGHTS
CASE DIGEST PHILIPPINES
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
CASE DIGEST]
STATCON
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
Ramirez v. CA, G.R. No. 93833, 248
SCRA 590, September 28, 1995 [FULL
Ramirez v. CA, G.R. No. 93833, 248 SCRA CASE DIGEST]
590, September 28, 1995 [FULL CASE People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561, 193
DIGEST] SCRA 57, January 18, 1991 [FULL CASE
DIGEST]

Spouses Veroy v. Layague, G.R. No. L-

95630, 210 SCRA 97, June 18, 1992
[FULL CASE DIGEST]

Silahis International Hotel v. Soluta,

G.R. No. 163087, 482 SCRA 660,
Ramirez v. CA, G.R. No. 93833, 248 SCRA 590, February 20, 2006 [FULL CASE
DIGEST]
September 28, 1995
TAGS

Bill of Rights
(6)
“Recording of conversation through a tape recorder”
Statutory Construction
(1)

The language of the Anti-Wire Tapping Law is clear and unambiguous. ARCHIVE

The provision clearly makes it illegal for ANY  person, NOT AUTHORIZED BY
▼ 
2015
(6)
ALL PARTIES to any private communication to secretly record such
▼ 
April
(6)
communication by means of a tape recorder.
People v. Evaristo, G.R. No. 93828,
216 SCRA 431, ...
A civil case was filed by petitioner Ramirez
alleging that the private
Spouses Veroy v. Layague, G.R.
respondent, Garcia, allegedly insulted and humiliated
her during a
No. L-95630, 210 SC...
confrontation in the office, in an offensive manner contrary to
morals,
good customs and public policy. People v. Damaso, G.R. No. 93516,
212 SCRA 547, Au...
To support her claim, petitioner produced a
verbatim transcript of the
Silahis International Hotel v.
event and sought moral damages.
Soluta, G.R. No. 16...
In response, private respondent filed a criminal
case alleging violation
Ramirez v. CA, G.R. No. 93833, 248
of ANTI-WIRE TAPPING LAW for secretly taping the
confrontation.
SCRA 590, Septe...
Whether the act of recording through a tape People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561, 193
SCRA 57, Janu...
constitutes an offense? YES.
The Court ruled that the language of the law is
clear and
DISCLAIMER: I do not claim ownership
unambiguous. The provision clearly makes it illegal for ANY person,
of any images used in this blog.
NOT
AUTHORIZED BY ALL PARTIES to any private communication
Powered by Blogger.
to secretly record such
communication by means of a tape recorder.
ABOUT ME
The law makes no distinction as to whether the
party sought to be hacej
penalized by the statute ought to be a party other than or
different
Hi, I'm currently a law student. Just
from those involved in the private communication. The statute's
intent
like you, I read a lot of cases and boy,
to penalize all persons unauthorized to make such recording is it took an insane amount of time to
underscored by the use of the qualifier "any". even finish one of them! Through this
The nature of the conversations is immaterial to
a violation of the blog I want to share some of the
statute. The substance of the same need not be specifically
alleged in cases I personally digested. Hope I
the information. The mere allegation that an individual made a
secret was of help.
recording of a private communication by means of a tape recorder View my complete profile
would
suffice to constitute an offense under Section 1 of R.A. 4200.
_
Petitioner's contention that the phrase
"private communication" in
Section 1 of R.A. 4200 does not include
"private conversations"
_
narrows the ordinary meaning of the word "communication" to a point
of absurdity. In its ordinary
signification, communication connotes the
_
act of sharing or imparting signification,
communication connotes the
act of sharing or imparting, as in a conversation, or
signifies the
"process by which meanings or thoughts are shared between
individuals through a common system of symbols (as language signs
or
gestures)."
These definitions are broad enough to include verbal or non-verbal,
written or expressive
communications of "meanings or thoughts"
which are likely to
include the emotionally-charged exchange between
petitioner and private respondent, in the privacy of the latter's office.
In Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, a
case which dealt with
the issue of telephone wiretapping, we held that the use
of a
telephone extension for the purpose of overhearing a private
conversation
without authorization did not violate R.A. 4200 because
a telephone extension
devise was neither among those "device(s) or
arrangement(s)" enumerated,
following the principle that "penal
statutes must be construed strictly in
favor of the accused."
In this case, the use of tape recorder falls
under the devices
enumerated in the law (Dictaphone,
Dictagraph,  Detectaphone,  Walkie-talkie, and  Tape
recorder).Therefore, the act of recording
through the tape constitutes
an offense.
The instant case turns on a different note,
because the applicable
facts and circumstances pointing to a violation of R.A.
4200 suffer
from no ambiguity, and the statute itself explicitly mentions the
unauthorized "recording" of private communications with the use of
tape-recorders as among the acts punishable.
Posted by
hacej

0 Response to "Ramirez v. CA, G.R. No. 93833, 248 SCRA 590,

September 28, 1995 [FULL CASE DIGEST]"

To leave a comment, click the button below to sign in with

Google.

SIGN IN WITH GOOGLE

NEWER POST HOME OLDER POST

COPYRIGHT 2014 RECITREADY DIGESTS DESIGN BY EVO TEMPLATES