G.R. No. 93833 September 1995 (Ramirez v Court of Appeals and Garcia) Flashcards Preview

Stat Con Cases > G.R. No. 93833 September 1995 (Ramirez v Court of Appeals and Garcia) > Flashcards

Flashcards in G.R. No. 93833 September 1995 (Ramirez v Court of Appeals and Garcia) Deck (17):
1

Who filed the petition for this case?

Socorro D. Ramirez

2

Where did the petitioner file this case?

Regional Trial Court of Quezon City

3

What was the petition filed by Socorro D. Ramirez?

A civil case for damages in a confrontation in Garcia's office.

4

What happened to Socorro that prompted her to file the case?

Socorro was allegedly vexed, insulted and humiliated in a "hostile and furious mood" and in a manner offensive to her dignity and personality, "contrary to morals, good customs and public policy."

5

How did Socorro prove her claim?

She produced a verbatim transcript of the event and sought moral damages, attorney's fees and other expenses of litigation (P610,000) from a tape recorder.

6

Who is the private respondent of this case?

Ester Garcia

7

What did the private respondent do as a response to the petition filed by Socorro?

Ester Garcia filed a criminal case against Socorro for violating R.A. 4200.

8

What is R.A. 4200?

It is "An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wiretapping and Other Related Violations of Private Communication and Other Purposes"

9

What did the petitioner do, upon arraignment, in lieu of the plea?

The petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information.

10

What was the ground for the Motion to Quash the Information?

The facts charged do not constitute an offense particularly a violation of R.A. 4200.

11

What was the decision of the trial court on the Motion to Quash the Information filed by the petitioner?

The trial court granted the petition.
(1) The facts charged do not constitute an offense under R.A. 4200
(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.

12

What did the private responded do after the trial court granted the petition of Socorro?

She filed a Petition for Review on Court of Appeals.

13

What was Court of Appeals' decision on the petition filed by the private respondent?

Court of Appeals declared that the trial court's decision was null and void. COA indicate that the allegations sufficiently constitute an offense punishable under Section 1 of R.A. 4200.

14

What are the issues of this case?

Whether or not
(1) R.A. applies to taping of a private conversation by one of the parties to a conversation
(2) the substance must be alleged in the information
(3) R.A. 4200 applies to private conversation

15

What was the decision of the Court?

The petition was denied.

16

What was the basis of the Court's decision?

(1) Legislative intent is determined principally by the language of the statute (the statute is clear and unambiguous)
(2) The nature of the conversation is immaterial to a violation of the statute (the mere allegation that an individual made a secret recording would suffice to constitute an offense under Section 1 of R.A. 4200)
(3) The petitioner's contention to the phrase "private communication" in Section 1 does not include "private conversations". It narrows the ordinary meaning of the word "communication" to a point of absurdity.

17

What was the doctrine learned in this case?

Legislative intent is determined principally from the language of the statute.