7/31/2019 PRELIM- Ramirez vs CA- Media Law MC AdDU -

1/1

Ramirez vs. Court of AppealsPosted on February 11, 2009 by danabatnag

Rule involved: Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos. Where the

law makes no distinctions, one does not distinguish.Issue: Does the anti-wiretapping law, RA 4200, allow parties to a conversation

to tape it without the consent of all those involved?

What was construed:The word any in Sec. 1 of RA 4200: It shall beunlawful 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, orhowever otherwise described.

Facts of the case: Soccoro Ramirez was scolded by Ester Garcia inside

Garcias office. Ramirez taped the conversation and later filed charges

against Garcia for insulting and humiliating her, using as evidence the

transcript of the conversation, based on the tape recording.Garcia filedcriminal charges against Ramirez for violating the anti-wire tapping act,

because it was done without her knowledge and consent. Ramirez claimed

that what the law forbids is for other parties, who are not part of the

conversation, to record it using the instruments enumerated in the law (there

was an earlier case that was dismissed because the instrument used was not

mentioned in the law).The trial court ruled in favor of Ramirez, granting amotion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an

offense, but the Court of Appeals reversed it.

Ratio: First, the court noted that the provision makes it clear that it is illegal for

any person to secretly record a conversation, unless authorized by all parties

involved.The law makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to bepenalized by the statute ought to be a party other than or different from those

involved in the private communication.The congressional records alsoshowed that the intent was that permission must be sought from all parties in

the conversation. This is a complete ban on tape recorded conversations

taken without the authorization of all the parties, Sen. Tanada said during the

deliberations.The provision seeks to penalize even those privy to theprivate communications. Where the law makes no distinctions, one does not

distinguish.

Decision: Petition denied. Decision of CA affirmed. Costs against Ramirez.

http://danabatnag.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/ronquillo-vs-ca-2/http://danabatnag.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/ronquillo-vs-ca-2/http://danabatnag.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/ronquillo-vs-ca-2/