University of Santo Tomas

Faculty of Civil Law

Group members:
1. Manalastas, Myron Dominick Zamora
2. Hernandez, Chad
3. Estember, Daniel
4. Rey, Christian Immanuel
5. Socrates, Tomas
1C
Case:
Socorro D. Ramirez v. Honorable Court of Appeals, and Ester S. Garcia
GR: 93833. September 28, 1995
Facts:
Socorro D. Ramirez, a subordinate of Ester S. Garcia, had a confrontation in the
latter's office. Ramirez filed a complaint against Garcia for allegedly vexing and
humiliating her. Ramirez have secretly recorded the confrontation and used the
transcript of the record as evidence. Because this evidence, Garcia filed a
criminal case against Ramirez for a violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Law.
Under this law, a provision states that:
Sec. 1. 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 dectaphone or walkietalkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described.

It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or
acts penalized in the next preceding sentence, to knowingly possess any tape record,
wire record, disc record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any
communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of this
Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for any other person or
persons; or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to
furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other person:
Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil,
criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section 3 hereof, shall not be
covered by this prohibition.
Issues:
1. Whether or not R.A. 4200 (anti-wiretapping Law) applies to Ramirez even if
she is one of the parties in the conversation?
Whether or not the content of the conversation is material to the crime?
Arguments:
1.

The law expressly prohibited the secretly recording of a private

conversation.
Ramirez did record her conversation with Garcia secretly, without the
consent of the latter, and Ramirez used that record against Garcia.
THEREFORE, Ramirez, despite being a party of the conversation, can be
held liable by committing an unlawful act that is prohibited under R. A. 4200
2.

The law prohibits the act of secretly recording a conversation.

It is sufficient that the offender have committed the prohibited acts to be

liable thereof.
THEREFORE, Since Ramirez have recorded the private conversation
without the consent of Garcia, her recording is itself the act punishable, and the
content is immaterial.