This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-11-18 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| There can be no resort to extrinsic aids -- like deliberations of Congress -- if the language of the law is plain, clear and unambiguous. Courts determine the intent of the law from the literal language of the law, within the law's four corners.[19] If the language of the law is plain, clear and unambiguous, courts simply apply the law according to its express terms. If a literal application of the law results in absurdity, impossibility or injustice, then courts may resort to extrinsic aids of statutory construction like the legislative history of the law.[20] | |||||
|
2006-04-19 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| With the exception of Ople v. Torres, the more notable case is Morfe v. Mutuc[22] where the Court first recognized the constitutional right to privacy as laid down in Griswold v. Connecticut. The case of Ramirez v. Court of Appeals[23] arose from petitioner's act of secretly tape recording an event in direct violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping Act. Therein, the court clarified that 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 under Section 1 of R.A. No. 4200. | |||||