G.R. No. 190912 - Fantastico vs. Malicse, Sr.

Civil action
Petitioner Socorro D. Ramirez filed Civil Case No. 88-403 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City against private respondent Ester S. Garcia for moral damages, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, alleging that Garcia “vexed, insulted and humiliated” her during a confrontation in Garcia’s office.
Ramirez presented as evidence a verbatim transcript of the confrontation derived from a tape recording she secretly made, claiming P610,000 in damages plus costs and interest.

Criminal information
Garcia then filed an information in RTC Pasay City charging Ramirez with violation of Republic Act No. 4200 (the “Wiretapping Act”) for secretly recording their private conversation on February 22, 1988, and communicating its contents in writing.
The information alleged that Ramirez “willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with the use of a tape recorder secretly record[ed]” the conversation without Garcia’s authorization.

Procedural history
On May 3, 1989, the RTC Pasay granted Ramirez’s motion to quash the information, ruling that R.A. 4200 applies only when a third party, not a participant, records a private communication.
Garcia petitioned for certiorari to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on February 9, 1990, reversed the RTC, holding that the facts did constitute an offense under Section 1 of R.A. 4200 and that quashing the information was a grave abuse of discretion. A motion for reconsideration was denied on June 19, 1990. Ramirez then filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Interpretation of R.A. 4200
Whether Section 1 of R.A. 4200 applies to a person who is a party to the conversation and secretly records it without the other party’s consent.
Whether the phrase “private communication” in R.A. 4200 excludes a private conversation.

Sufficiency of the information
Whether an information under R.A. 4200 must allege the substance or content of the recorded communication to constitute an offense.