CHAPTER 5

RAMIREZ vs CA

- Private respondent insulted and humiliated petitioner

- Presented in verbatim transcript of the event to court because she recorded said conversation

- Private respondent filed criminal case against petitioner for violating Anti Wiretapping Act

- Petitioner contended she was exempted since she was a party to the conversation

- Law clearly provided “any person” not authorized by all parties to any private communication is liable

- Law did not distinguish (exempted) whether the party sought o be penalized ought to be party other than or different from those involved in the private communication

Ramirez v. CASTATUTE: “Act to Prohibit & Penalize Wire Tapping and Other related Violations of Private Communications and Other Purposes”

“It shall be unlawful, 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…”ISSUE: Whether violation thereof refers to the taping of a communication other than a participant to the communication or even to the taping by a participant who did not secure the consent of the party to the conversations.HELD: Law did not distinguish whether the party sought to be penalized ought to be party other than or different from those involved in the private communication. The intent is to penalize all persons unauthorized to make any such recording, underscored by “any”