Ramirez v. CA, G.R. No. 93833, 248 SCRA 590, September 28, 1995 [FULL CASE DIGEST]

Ramirez v. CA, G.R. No. 93833, 248 SCRA 590, September 28, 1995

“Recording of conversation through a tape recorder”

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

The provision clearly makes it illegal for ANY person, NOT AUTHORIZED BY ALL PARTIES to any private communication to secretly record such communication by means of a tape recorder.

• A civil case was filed by petitioner Ramirez alleging that the private respondent, Garcia, allegedly insulted and humiliated her during a confrontation in the office, in an offensive manner contrary to morals, good customs and public policy.
• To support her claim, petitioner produced a verbatim transcript of the event and sought moral damages.
• In response, private respondent filed a criminal case alleging violation of ANTI-WIRE TAPPING LAW for secretly taping the confrontation.

Whether the act of recording through a tape constitutes an offense? YES.

• The Court ruled that the language of the law is clear and unambiguous. The provision clearly makes it illegal for ANY person, NOT AUTHORIZED BY ALL PARTIES to any private communication to secretly record such 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".
• 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. 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.
• 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.