CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
(CONSTI2)
A.Y. 2022-2023
Ramirez VS Ca
Topic: Privacy of Communication
Specific law/s under the topic:
RA 4200
"An Act to prohibit and penalize wiretapping and other related violations of private
communication, and other purposes."
Facts:
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 ANTIWIRE TAPPING LAW for secretly taping the confrontation.
Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the information filed against her.
The RTC granted the motion, agreeing that 1) the facts charged do not
constitute an offense under R.A. 4200; and that 2) the violation punished by
R.A. 4200 refers to a the taping of a communication by a person other than a
participant to the communication.
Private respondent filed a petition for Review on Certiorari.
CA ruled that the decision of the RTC is null and void.
Hence the instant petition.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
1) the facts charged do not constitute an offense under R.A. 4200;
2) 2) the violation punished by R.A. 4200 refers to a the taping of a
communication by a person other than a participant to the
communication
nd
2 round
Petitioner contends the follow before the SC:
1. her "main and principal issue"7 that the applicable provision of Republic
Act 4200 does not apply to the taping of a private conversation by one
of the parties to the conversation
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
(CONSTI2)
A.Y. 2022-2023
2. petitioner avers that the substance or content of the conversation must
be alleged in the Information, otherwise the facts charged would not
constitute a violation of R.A. 4200.
3. petitioner agues that R.A. 4200 penalizes the taping of a "private
communication," not a "private conversation" and that consequently,
her act of secretly taping her conversation with private respondent was
not illegal under the said act
RTC:
Granted the motion by the petitioner as it agreed to the contention of the former.
CA:
RTC’s decision is null and void on the whereas the allegations sufficiently
constitute an offense punishable under Section 1 of R.A. 4200. In thus
quashing the information based on the ground that the facts alleged do not
constitute an offense, the respondent judge acted in grave abuse of discretion
correctible by certiorari.
Petitioner filed for a MR which the CA denied.
Issue:
W/N the Anti-Wiretapping Act applies in recordings by one of the parties in
the conversation?
Ruling:
Yes.
Rationale:
The court held yes because under section 1 of RA 4200, “It shall be unlawful for
any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or
spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement,
to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by
using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or
walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described.”.
As explained in the abovementioned provision, it is unlawful for any
unauthorized person to record private communication using any device. The statute
did not make any distinction as to whether the party need to be penalized be a party
other than or different from those involved in the said private communication.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
(CONSTI2)
A.Y. 2022-2023
Furthermore, the court explained that the nature of the conversation is
immaterial to the violation of the statute. RA 4200 penalizes the acts of secretly
overhearing, intercepting or recording private communications by means of the
devices enumerated therein. Moreover, it is nowhere to be found that to be regard as
violator, the nature of the conversation, or its communication to a third person should
be professed.
Borrowing the language of the court, If the court were to accept that the phrase private
communication in section 1 of RA 4200 does not include “PRIVATE
CONVERSATIONS”, it would narrow the ordinary meaning of COMMUNICATION to a
point of absurdity. When the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there
is no room for construction.
Dispositive portion of the case:
WHEREFORE, because the law, as applied to the case at bench is clear and
unambiguous and leaves us with no discretion, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.
The decision appealed from is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED
Personal comments on the case:
More on STATCON to. For the rationale pwedeng shortcut into
Under section of 1 of RA 4200, the language of statute is clear that it intends to penalized the
acts of blah blah blah and so on & so on
“When the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for
construction.”
Nag-iimbento lang yung petitioner. Gumawa ng sariling batas ganun haha
NOTES:
Q. Why was there VIOLATION?
A. Since it was a face-to-face conversation. There is a high
reasonable expectation of privacy.
Q. Can the State intrude to that reasonable expectation of
privacy?
A. YES.
Q. Is there a right to privacy in the Constitution? (YES)
A. NOT EXPRESSLY stated, BUT it can be IMPLIED as the
Constitution provides for unreasonable searches which is a
manifestation of privacy.
*Right to privacy is central to the idea of individuality; not
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
(CONSTI2)
A.Y. 2022-2023
founded in the Philippines ideals (we are family-centered that’s
why reasonable expectation is required) but in US’s
individuality