FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 93833. September 28, 1995.]

SOCORRO D. RAMIREZ, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF

APPEALS and ESTER S. GARCIA, respondent. cdll

E. Voltaire Garcia for petitioner.

Cesar V . Chavez for private respondent.

DECISION

KAPUNAN, J : p

A civil case for damages was filed by petitioner Socorro D. Ramirez in

the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City alleging that the private respondent,
Ester S. Garcia, in a confrontation in the latter's office, allegedly vexed,
insulted and humiliated her in a "hostile and furious mood" and in a manner
offensive to petitioner's dignity and personality," contrary to morals, good
customs and public policy." 1
In support of her claim, petitioner produced a verbatim transcript of
the event and sought moral damages, attorney's fees and other expenses of
litigation in the amount of P610,000.00, in addition to costs, interests and
other reliefs awardable at the trial court's discretion. The transcript on which
the civil case was based was culled from a tape recording of the
confrontation made by petitioner. 2 The transcript reads as follows:
Plaintiff Soccoro D. Ramirez (Chuchi)
Good afternoon Ma'am.
Defendant Ester S. Garcia (ESG)
Ano ba ang nangyari sa 'yo, nakalimot ka na kung paano ka
napunta rito, porke member ka na, magsumbong ka kung ano
ang gagawin ko sa iyo.
CHUCHI
Kasi, naka duty ako noon.
ESG
Tapos iniwan no. (Sic)
CHUCHI
Hindi ma'am, pero ilan beses na nila akong binalikan, sabing
ganoon.
ESG
Ito and (sic ) masasabi ko sa 'yo, ayaw kung (sic ) mag explain ka,
kasi hanggang, 10:00 p.m., kinabukasan hindi ka na pumasok.
Ngayon ako ang babalik sa 'yo, nag-aaply ka sa States, nag-
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 aapply ka sa review mo, kung kakailanganin ang certification mo,
kalimutan mo na kasi hindi ka sa akin makakahingi.
CHUCHI
Hindi Ma'am. Kasi ang ano ko talaga noon i-cocontinue ko up to
10:00 p.m.
ESG
Bastos ka, nakalimutan mo na kung paano ka pumasok dito sa
hotel. Magsumbong ka sa Union kung gusto mo. Nakalimutan mo
na kung paano ka nakapasok dito "Do you think that on your own
makakapasok ka kung hindi ako. Panunumbyoyan na kita
(Sinusumbatan na kita).
CHUCHI
Itutuloy ko na Ma'am sana ang duty ko.
ESG
Kaso ilang beses na akong binabalikan doon ng mga no (sic ) ko.
ESG
Nakalimutan mo na ba kung paano ka pumasok sa hotel, kung on
your own merit alam ko naman kung gaano ka "ka bobo" mo.
Marami ang nag-aaply alam kong hindi ka papasa.
CHUCHI
Kukuha kami ng exam noon.
ESG
Oo, pero hindi ka papasa.
CHUCHI
Eh, bakit ako ang nakuha ni Dr. Tamayo.
ESG
Kukunin ka kasi ako.
CHUCHI
Eh, di sana —
ESG
Huwag mong ipagmalaki na may utak ka kasi wala kang utak.
Akala mo ba makukuha ka dito kung hindi ako.
CHUCHI
Mag-eexplain ako.
ESG
Huwag na, hindi ako mag-papa-explain sa 'yo, makaalala ka kung
paano ka puma-rito. "Putang-ina" sasabi-sabihin mo kamag-anak
ng nanay at tatay mo ang mga magulang ko.
ESG
Wala na akong pakialam, dahil nandito ka sa loob, nasa labas ka
puwede ka ng hindi pumasok, okey yan nasaloob ka umalis ka
doon.
CHUCHI
Kasi M'am, binabalikan ako ng mga taga Union.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 ESG
Nandiyan na rin ako, pero huwag mong kalimutan na hindi ka
makakapasok kung hindi ako. Kung hindi mo kinikilala yan okey
lang sa akin, dahil tapos ka na.
CHUCHI
Ina-ano ko ma'am na utang na loob.
ESG
Huwag na lang, hindi mo utang na loob, kasi kung baga sa no,
nilapastanganan mo ako.
CHUCHI
Paano kita nilapastanganan?
ESG
Mabuti pa lumabas ka na. Hindi na ako makikipagusap sa 'yo.
Lumabas ka na. Magsumbong ka. 3
As a result of petitioner's recording of the event and alleging that the
said act of secretly taping the confrontation was illegal, private respondent
filed a criminal case before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City for
violation of Republic Act 4200, entitled "An Act to prohibit and penalize wire
tapping and other related violations of private communication, and other
purposes." An information charging petitioner of violation of the said Act,
dated October 6, 1988 is quoted herewith:
INFORMATION

The Undersigned Assistant City Fiscal Accuses Socorro D.

Ramirez of Violation of Republic Act No. 4200, committed as follows:

That on or about the 22nd day of February, 1988, in Pasay City, Metro
Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this honorable court, the
above-named accused, Socorro D. Ramirez not being authorized by Ester S.
Garcia to record the latter's conversation with said accused, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with the use of a tape recorder
secretly record the said conversation and thereafter communicate in writing
the contents of the said recording to other person.
Contrary to Law.
Pasay City, Metro Manila, September 16, 1988.
MARIANO M. CUNETA
Asst. City Fiscal
Upon arraignment, in lieu of a plea, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash
the Information on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an
offense, particularly a violation of R.A. 4200. In an order May 3, 1989, the
trial court granted the Motion to Quash, agreeing with petitioner that 1) the
facts charged do not constitute an offense under R.A. 4200; and that 2) the
violation punished by R.A. 4200 refers to the taping of a communication by a
person other than a participant to the communication. 4
From the trial court's Order, the private respondent filed a Petition for
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 Review on Certiorari with this Court, which forthwith referred the case to the
Court of Appeals in a Resolution (by the First Division) of June 19, 1989. cdtai

On February 9, 1990, respondent Court of Appeals promulgated its

assailed Decision declaring the trial court's order of May 3, 1989 null and
void, and holding that:
"[T]he allegations sufficiently constitute an offense punishable
under Section 1 of R.A. 4200. In thus quashing the information based
on the ground that the facts alleged do not constitute an offense, the
respondent judge acted in grave abuse of discretion correctible by
certiorari." 5
Consequently, on February 21, 1990, petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration which respondent Court of Appeals denied in its Resolution 6
dated June 19, 1990. Hence, the instant petition.
Petitioner vigorously argues, as her "main and principal issue" 7 that
the applicable provision of Republic Act 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. 8 In relation to this, petitioner 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. 9 Finally,
petitioner argues that R.A. 4200 penalizes the taping of a "private
communication," not a "private conversation" and that consequently, her act
of secretly taping her conversation with private respondent was not illegal
under the said act. 10
We disagree. prLL

First, legislative intent is determined principally from the language of a

statute. Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the law
is applied according to its express terms, and interpretation would be
resorted to only where a literal interpretation would be either impossible 11
or absurd or would lead to an injustice. 12
Section 1 of R.A. 4200 entitled, "An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire
Tapping and Other Related Violations of Private Communication and Other
Purposes," provides:
SECTION 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 detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape
recorder, or however otherwise described.
The aforestated provision 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 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" 13 under this provision of R.A. 4200.
A perusal of the Senate Congressional Records, moreover, supports the
respondent court's conclusion that in enacting R.A. 4200 our lawmakers
indeed contemplated to make illegal, unauthorized tape recording of private
conversations or communications taken either by the parties themselves or
by third persons. Thus:
xxx xxx xxx
Senator Tañada:
The qualified only 'overhear.'

Senator Padilla :
So that when it is intercepted or recorded, the element of secrecy
would not appear to be material. Now, suppose, Your Honor, the
recording is not made by all the parties but by some parties and
involved not criminal cases that would be mentioned under Section 3
but would cover, for example civil cases or special proceedings
whereby a recording is made not necessarily by all the parties but
perhaps by some in an effort to show the intent of the parties because
the actuation of the parties prior, simultaneous even subsequent to the
contract or the act may be indicative of their intention. Suppose there
is such a recording, would you say, Your Honor, that the intention is to
cover it within the purview of this bill or outside?
Senator Tañada:
That is covered by the purview of this bill, Your Honor.
Senator Padilla :
Even if the record should be used not in the prosecution of
offense but as evidence to be used in Civil Cases or special
proceedings?
Senator Tañada:
That is right. This is a complete ban on tape recorded
conversations taken without the authorization of all the parties.
Senator Padilla :
Now, would that be reasonable, Your Honor?
Senator Tañada:
I believe it is reasonable because it is not sporting to record the
observation of one without his knowing it and then using it
against him. It is not fair, it is not sportsmanlike . If the purpose;
Your honor, is to record the intention of the parties. I believe that
all the parties should know that the observations are being
recorded.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 Senator Padilla :
This might reduce the utility of recorders.
Senator Tañada:
Well no. For example, I was to say that in meetings of the board
of directors where a tape recording is taken, there is no objection
to this if all the parties know. It is but fair that the people whose
remarks and observations are being made should know that
these are being recorded.
Senator Padilla :
Now, I can understand.
Senator Tañada:
That is why when we take statements of persons, we say: "Please
be informed that whatever you say here may be used against
you." That is fairness and that is what we demand. Now, in spite
of that warning, he makes damaging statements against his own
interest, well, he cannot complain any more. But if you are going
to take a recording of the observations and remarks of a person
without him knowing that it is being taped or recorded, without
him knowing that what is being recorded may be used against
him, I think it is unfair .
xxx xxx xxx
(Congressional Record, Vol. III, No. 31, p. 584, March 12, 1964)
Senator Diokno :
Do you understand, Mr. Senator, that under Section 1 of the bill
as now worded, if a party secretly records a public speech, he
would be penalized under Section 1? Because the speech is
public, but the recording is done secretly.
Senator Tañada:
Well, that particular aspect is not contemplated by the bill. It is
the communication between one person and another person —
not between a speaker and a public.
xxx xxx xxx
(Congressional Record, Vol. III. No. 33, p. 626, March 12, 1964)
xxx xxx xxx
The unambiguity of the express words of the provision, taken together
with the above-quoted deliberations from the Congressional Record,
therefore plainly supports the view held by the respondent court that the
provision seeks to penalize even those privy to the private communications.
Where the law makes no distinctions, one does not distinguish. cdlex

Second, the nature of the conversation is immaterial to a violation of

the statute. The substance of the same need not be specifically alleged in
the information. What R.A. 4200 penalizes are the acts of secretly
overhearing, intercepting or recording private communications by means of
the devices enumerated therein. The mere allegation that an individual
made a secret recording of a private communication by means of a tape
recorder would suffice to constitute an offense under Section 1 of R.A. 4200.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 As the Solicitor General pointed out in his COMMENT before the respondent
court: "Nowhere (in the said law) is it required that before one can be
regarded as a violator, the nature of the conversation, as well as its
communication to a third person should be professed."14
Finally, petitioner's contention that the phrase "private
communication" in Section 1 of R.A. 4200 does not include "private
conversations" narrows the ordinary meaning of the word "communication"
to a point of absurdity. The word communicate comes from the latin word
communicare, meaning "to share or to impart." In its ordinary signification,
communication connotes the act of sharing or imparting, as in a
conversation, 15 or signifies the "process by which meanings or thoughts are
shared between individuals through a common system of symbols (as
language signs or gestures)." 16 These definitions are broad enough to
include verbal or non-verbal, written or expressive communications of
"meanings or thoughts" which are likely to include the emotionally-charged
exchange, on February 22, 1988, between petitioner and private respondent,
in the privacy of the latter's office. Any doubts about the legislative body's
meaning of the phrase "private communication" are, furthermore, put to rest
by the fact that the terms "conversation" and "communication" were
interchangeably used by Senator Tañada in his Explanatory Note to the bill
quoted below:
"It has been said that innocent people have nothing to fear from
their conversations being overheard. But this statement ignores the
usual nature of conversations as well as the undeniable fact that most,
if not all, civilized people have some aspects of their lives they do not
wish to expose. Free conversations are often characterized by
exaggerations, obscenity, agreeable falsehoods, and the expression of
anti-social desires of views not intended to be taken seriously. The
right to the privacy of communication, among others, has expressly
been assured by our Constitution. Needless to state here, the framers
of our Constitution must have recognized the nature of conversations
between individuals and the significance of man's spiritual nature, of
his feelings and of his intellect. They must have known that part of the
pleasures and satisfactions of life are to be found in the unaudited, and
free exchange of communication between individuals — free from
every unjustifiable intrusion by whatever means." 17

In Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 18 a case which dealt with

the issue of telephone wiretapping, we held that the use of a telephone
extension for the purpose of overhearing a private conversation without
authorization did not violate R.A. 4200 because a telephone extension
devise was neither among those devises enumerated in Section 1 of the law
nor was it similar to those "device(s) or arrangement(s)" enumerated
therein," 19 following the principle that "penal statutes must be construed
strictly in favor of the accused." 20 The instant case turns on a different note,
because the applicable facts and circumstances pointing to a violation of
R.A. 4200 suffer from no ambiguity, and the statute itself explicitly mentions
the unauthorized "recording" of private communications with the use of
tape-recorders as among the acts punishable. cdtai

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com

 WHEREFORE, because the law, as applied to the case at bench is clear
and unambiguous and leaves us with no discretion, the instant petition is
hereby DENIED. The decision appealed from is AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla, Davide, Jr. and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.
Hermosisima, Jr., J., is on official leave.

Footnotes
1 Docketed as Civil Case No. 88-403, Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch 64.

2 Rollo , p. 48.
3 Rollo , pp. 47-48.
4 Rollo , p. 9.
5 Rollo , p. 37. LexLibris

6 Rollo , p. 99, "H".

7 Rollo , p. 13.
8 Id.
9 Rollo , p. 14.
10 Rollo , pp. 14-15.
11 Pacific Oxygen and Acetylene Co. vs. Central Bank, 37 SCRA 685 (1971).
12 Casela v. Court of Appeals, 35 SCRA 279 (1970).
13 Rollo , p. 33.
14 Rollo , p. 67.
15 WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 460 (1976).

16 Id.
17 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. III, No. 31 at 573 (March 10, 1964).
18 145 SCRA 112 (1986). See also, Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA , 235 SCRA 111
(1994).
19 Id., at 120.
20 Id., at 121.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com