EVIDENCE Evidence in relation to RA 4200 Ramirez v. CA, GR 93833, 28 September 1995

 Ramirez v. CA, GR 93833, 28 September 1995

Doctrine: Section 1 of the Anti-Wire Tapping Law 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.

FACTS: Socorro D. Ramirez and Ester S. Garcia had a conversation wherein the latter allegedly insulted and humiliated Ramirez in a manner which was offensive to Ramirez’ dignity and personality. Without the knowledge of Garcia, Ramirez recorded their conversation.

Thereafter, due to the alleged humiliation she suffered, Ramirez filed a civil case against Gercia praying that the latter be ordered to pay Ramiraz moral damages. In support of her claim, Ramirez produced a verbatim transcript of their conversation.

As a result of Ramirez’ recording of the event, Garcia filed a criminal complaint against Ramirez alleging that the act of secretly taping their conversation constituted a violation of RA 4200, entitled "An Act to prohibit and penalize wire-tapping and other related violations of private communication, and other purposes."

Ramirez, on the other hand, argues, RA 4200 does not apply to the taping of a private conversation by one of the parties to the conversation. She contends that the provision merely refers to the unauthorized taping of a private conversation by a party other than those involved in the communication.

In relation to this, Ramirez 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.

ISSUE: WHETHER THE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORDING IS ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE?

HELD: NO. Section 1 of the Anti-Wire Tapping Law 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. The statute's intent to penalize all persons unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the use of the qualifier "any". Consequently, as respondent Court of Appeals correctly concluded, "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" under this provision of R.A. 4200.