Verba legis non est recedendum & Ejusdem Generis

The legal maxim Verba legis non est recedendum means “From the words of the statute,
there should be no departure.”(R) To explain simpler, in statutory construction, this means that
there no longer exists a need to look at the spirit of the law, when the law or statute is clear and
unambiguous.

It was held in the case of Capuchino v. Apolonio, that the act of engaging in the
conversation regarding the money deposited, and taping without the consent of the two parties
involved, and this taping is used to report illegal deposit, makes it inadmissible as evidence. This
is because it is covered under matters in the RA4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping Law, clothed with
public interest of the Judiciary to stand with unblemished integrity. (R) Hence, the tapes were not
considered as credible evidence in raising the case. This falls under Verba legis non est
recedendum because there is a strict interpretation with regards to whether or not the taping without
consent makes the person guilty a violator of the said law. It has been held inadmissible because
RA 4200 explicitly states that “’[E]ven a (person) privy to a communication who records his
private conversation with another without the knowledge of the latter (will) qualify as a violator’.
(R) Hence, it is clear and unambiguous, with no need to imply other matters such as that of intent.

Similarly, in the case of Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, it was held that with
regards to telephone wiretapping, the use of a telephone extension for the sole purpose of
overhearing a private conversation without authorization does not violate R.A. 4200 because a
telephone extension devise was neither among those "device(s) or arrangement(s)" provided for in
the enumeration given by the said law. This also follows the principle that "penal statutes must be
construed strictly in favor of the accused." (R)
This likewise falls under Verba legis non est recedendum because a strict interpretation was
followed. Since telephone extensions which are not part of the enumeration, they were not at all
considered part of it since the law does not state so. Since the RA4200 is special penal law, it was
deemed to be exclusive while having an exclusive enumeration. With this, those that did not fall
under the said enumeration are not considered.

The Latin maxim Ejusdem Generis means “of the same kind”. It is used to interpret
statutes when a law lists classes of persons or things. (R)

In the case of Navarro v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court was able to make a
distinction between public and private communications, given that private communications are the
ones that fall under the Anti-Wiretapping Law. The Supreme Court held that, a heated conversation
in a public area with numerous people does not constitute as a public conversation, therefore, it is
not prohibited. The principle of ejusdem generis is applicable to this case because only those of
the same nature, or are classified as private communications are those that are not prohibited. Since
the argument falls under the description that defines a public conversation, it is classified as such.

In the recent issue between Sen. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel and Sen. Aguirre, Senator Risa
Hontiveros caught Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre drafting fabricated charges against her. This
was through text messages exchanged while a hearing was ongoing. His act was caught in a photo
that clearly shows the said text message, however, the issue here is whether or not this is admissible
as evidence under the RA 4200 Anti-Wire Tapping Law. There is no ambiguity in the law as
deliberately used the term, ”communication” that means ”the sharing of knowledge by one with
another; conference; consultation or bargaining preparatory to making a contract.” In the issue
between Aguirre and Hontiveros, text messages could simply fall within the definition of
communication, which the Anti-Wiretapping law could actually include.