Case Digest (G.R. No. 93833)
Facts:
Socorro D. Ramirez v. Honorable Court of Appeals, and Ester S. Garcia, G.R. No. 93833. September 28, 1995, the Supreme Court First Division, Kapunan, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Socorro D. Ramirez sued private respondent Ester S. Garcia in the Regional Trial Court (docketed Civil Case No. 88-403, Branch 64, Makati) for damages, alleging that during a confrontation in respondent’s office Garcia "vexed, insulted and humiliated" her in a manner offensive to her dignity. Petitioner relied on a verbatim transcript of the confrontation, which she prepared from a tape recording she secretly made of the event, and prayed for moral damages, attorney’s fees and other reliefs.
Respondent Garcia, asserting that the tape recording was made without her authorization, filed a criminal information in the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City charging petitioner with violation of Republic Act No. 4200 (the wiretapping law). The information, dated October 6, 1988, accused petitioner of secretly recording the conversation with a tape recorder.
Upon arraignment, petitioner moved to quash the information on the ground that the facts charged did not constitute an offense under R.A. 4200 because the statute penalized unauthorized recordings by persons other than a participant to the communication. In an order dated May 3, 1989, the trial court granted the motion to quash, concluding that R.A. 4200 was inapplicable to a recording made by one of the parties.
Private respondent sought review in the Supreme Court by filing a petition for review on certiorari; the Supreme Court referred the matter to the Court of Appeals. On February 9, 1990, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, declaring the trial court’s May 3, 1989 order null and void and holding that the allegations in the information did constitute an offe...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does Section 1 of Republic Act No. 4200 apply to a secret tape recording of a private conversation made by one of the parties to that conversation?
- Must the information charging a violation of Section 1 of R.A. 4200 specifically allege the substance or content of the recorded conversation for the information to state an offense?
- Does the term "private communication" in Section 1 of R.A. 42...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)