CASE DIGEST 4 – RAMIREZ VS GARCIA

DOCTRINE: The legislative intent is determined principally from the language of a statute and that
where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the law is applied according to its express
terms, and interpretation would be resorted to only where a literal interpretation would be either
impossible, absurd or would lead to an injustice.

FACTS:

1. Ramirez filed a civil case against Garcia alleging that Garcia allegedly vexed, insulted and
humiliated her. To support her claim, Ramirez produced a verbatim transcript of their
conversation culled from a tape recording. As a result of Ramirez’s recording, Garcia filed a
criminal complaint against Ramirez for violation of RA 4200 “An Act to prohibit and penalize wire-
tapping and other related violations of private communication, and other purposes."

2. Ramirez filed a motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense
and that the violation punished under RA 4200 refers to the taping of a communication by a
person other than a participant to the communication. RTC granted the motion to quash. On
appeal, CA declared trial court’s order null and void. A motion for reconsideration was
subsequently denied by the CA hence the instant petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not RA 4200 applies to the tapping of a private conversation by one of the parties to
the conversation

HELD: Yes. The petition is DENIED and the decision of CA is AFFIRMED.

1. Section 1 of RA 4200 clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by
all the 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. As correctly concluded by CA, “Even a person privy to a communication who
records his private conversation with another without the knowledge of the latter will qualify
as a violator”.

2. The Court likewise reviewed the Senate Congressional Records and concluded that the express
letter of the law is consistent with the legislative intent as expressed by the Members of the
Senate during deliberations.

3. The unambiguity of the express words of the provision, taken together with the deliberations
from the Senate Congressional Records, therefore plainly supports the view held by CA that the
provision seeks to penalize even those privy to the private communications. Where the law makes
no distinction, one does not distinguish.