006 GANAAN v. IAC (CASTILLO) telephone line.

16 October 1986 | Gutierrez, Jr. J. | Anti-Wire Tapping Act 20.! October 22, 1975 – Atty. Tito Pintor and his client Manuel
Montebon were in the living room of Pintor’s residence discussing
PETITIONER: Eduarado A. Gaanan (Sir’s syllabus says Ganaan but it’s the terms for the withdrawal of the complaint for direct assault which
really Gaanan in the case) they filed with the Office of the City Fiscal of Cebu against Atty.
RESPONDENTS: Intermediate Appellate Court, and People of the Leonardo Laconico. After they had decided on the proposed
Philippines conditions, Pintor made a telephone call to Laconico.
21.! Laconico telephoned Gaanan, who is a lawyer, to come to his office
and advise him on the settlement of the direct assault case because
SUMMARY: Appellant, lawyer of Lacocino, listened in on the conversation
his regular lawyer, Atty. Leon Gonzaga, went on a business trip.
between Lacocino and complainant through a telephone extension
According to the request, Gaanan went to the office of Laconico
regarding the withdrawal of the complaint for direct assault, in exchange for
certain conditions like payment of P8000. Complainant was arrested based where he was briefed about the problem.
22.! When Atty. Pintor called up, Laconico requested Gaanan to secretly
on the affidavit of appellant based on what he heard through the telephone
listen to the telephone conversation through a telephone extension so
extension. Main issue is whether or not an extension telephone is among the
as to hear personally the proposed conditions for the settlement
prohibited devices in such that its use to overhear a private conversation
would constitute unlawful interception of communications between the two Gaanan heard Atty. Pintor enumerate the following conditions for
withdrawal of the complaint for direct assault:
parties using a telephone line. The Court ruled in the negative saying that no
a.! P5,000 was no longer acceptable and has been increased to
mention was made of telephones in the enumeration of devices. The law
refers to a "tap" of a wire or cable or the use of a "device or arrangement" for P8,000 (Breakdown: P5k for Pintor himself for persuading
his client to withdraw the case for Direct Assault against
the purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording the
Laconico)
communication. There must be either a physical interruption through a
wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to b.! Public apology to be made by Laconico before the students
of Don Bosco Technical School
overhear, intercept, or record the spoken words. An extension telephone
c.! P1,000 given to the Don Bosco Faculty club
cannot be placed in the same category as the use thereof cannot be
d.! Transfer son of Laconico to another school or section
considered as "tapping" the wire or cable of a telephone line. The telephone
extension in this case was not installed for that purpose. It just happened to e.! Affidavit of desistance by Atty. Laconico on the
Maltreatment case earlier filed against Manuel Montebon at
be there for ordinary office use.
the Cebu City Fiscal’s Office, whereas Montebon’s affidavit
of desistance on the Direct Assault Case against Atty.
DOCTRINE: The law refers to the “tap” of a wire or the use of a “device or
Laconico to be filed later;
arrangement" for the purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or
f.! Allow Manuel Montebon to continue teaching at the Don
recording the communication. There must be either a physical interruption
Bosco Technical School;
through a wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in
g.! Not to divulge the truth about the settlement of the Direct
order to overhear, intercept, or record the spoken words.
Assault Case to the mass media;
h.! P2,000.00 attorney’s fees for Atty. Pintor.
FACTS: 23.! Pintor called up Laconico 20 minutes later to ask if he was agreeable
19.! This petition for certiorari asks for an interpretation of Republic Act to the conditions. Laconico said yes, and Pintor instructed Laconico
(RA) No. 4200, otherwise known as the Anti-Wiretapping Act, on to give the money to his wife at the office of the then Department of
the issue of whether or not an extension telephone is among the Public Highways.
prohibited devices in Section 1 of the Act, such that its use to a.! Laconico who earlier alerted his friend Colonel Zulueta of
overhear a private conversation would constitute unlawful the Criminal Investigation Service of the Philippine
interception of communications between the two parties using a Constabulary (PC), insisted that Pintor himself should
 receive the money. any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept,
b.! Pintor received the money at the Igloo Restaurant and was or record such communication or spoken word by using a device
arrested by agents of the PC commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone
24.! Gaanan executed on the following day an affidavit stating that he or walkie-talkie or taperecorder, or however otherwise
heard Pintor demand P8,000.00 for the withdrawal of the case for described;
direct assault. It shall be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the
a.! Laconico attached the affidavit of Gaanan to the complainant act or acts penalized in the next preceeding sentence, to knowingly
for robbery/extortion which he filed against Pintor. possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such
25.! Since Gaanan listened to the telephone conversation without Pintor’s record, or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word
consent, Pinator charged Gaanan and Laconico with violation of the secured either bef ore or after the effective date of this Act in the
Anti-Wiretapping Act. manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for any other
26.! Lower court decision: found both Gaanan and Laconico guilty of person or persons; or to communicate the contents thereof, either
violating Section 1 of Republic Act No. 4200. The two were each verbally or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether
sentenced to one (1) year imprisonment with costs. Gaanan appealed complete or partial, to any other person: Provided, that the use of
to the appellate court. such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal
27.! IAC decision: Affirmed the decision of the trial court, holding that investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in Section 3 hereof, shall
the communication between Pintor and Laconico was private in not be covered by this prohibition.''
nature, and covered by R.A. 4200. 19.! Respondent People argue that an extension telephone is embraced
a.! Overheard the communication without the knowledge and and covered by the term “device” within the context of the
consent of Pintor aforementioned law because it is not a part or portion of a complete
b.! The extension telephone which was used by Gaanan to set of a telephone apparatus.
overhear the conversation is covered in the term “device” in 20.! It is a separate device and distinct set of a movable apparatus
R.A. No. 4200. consisting of a wire and a set of telephone receiver not forming part
ISSUE/s: of a main telephone set which can be detached or removed and can
12.! Whether or not an extension telephone is among the prohibited be transferred away from one place to another and to be plugged or
devices covered by the term “device or arrangement” in such that its attached to a main telephone line to get the desired communication
use to overhear a private conversation would constitute unlawful coming from the other party or end.
interception of communications between the two parties using a 21.! The law refers to a “tap” of a wire or cable or the use of a
telephone line NO — In the law, no mention was made of telephones “device or arrangement” for the purpose of secretly overhearing,
in the enumeration of devices. [RELEVANT ISSUE; tackles all the intercepting, or recording the communication.
other issues mentioned by the SC but did not expound on] 22.! There must be either a physical interruption through a wiretap or the
deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to
RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the overhear, intercept, or record the spoken words.
then Intermediate Appellate Court dated August 16,1984 is ANNULLED and 23.! An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a
SET ASIDE. The petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of violation dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices enumerated in Section 1
of Rep. Act No. 4200, otherwise known as the Anti-Wiretapping Act. of RA No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered as “tapping”
the wire or cable of a telephone line.
RATIO: 24.! The telephone extension in this case was not installed for that
Issue 1 purpose. It just happened to be there for ordinary office use.
18.! Section 1 of R.A. No. 4200: “Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any 25.! It is a rule in statutory construction that in order to determine the true
person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private intent of the legislature, the particular clauses and phrases of the
communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable or by using statute should not be taken as detached and isolated expressions, but
 the whole and every part thereof must be considered in fixing the penalizing the act of recording than the act of merely listening to
meaning of any of its parts. a telephone conversation.
26.! Empire Insurance Company v. Rufino: Article 1372 of the Civil a.! The Court proceeded to list a part of the Congressional
Code stipulates that ‘however general the terms of a contract may be, Record involving Senators Tañada, and Diokno discussing
they shall not be understood to comprehend things that are distinct that entrapment operations would be less possible with the
and cases that are different from those upon which the parties amendment of the law than without it because with the
intended to agree. amendment, the evidence of entrapment would only consist
27.! Hence, the phrase “device or arrangement” in Section 1 of RA No. of government testimony as against the testimony of the
4200, although not exclusive to that enumerated therein, should be defendant. With this amendment, they would have the right,
construed to comprehend instruments of the same or similar nature, and the government officials and the person in fact would
that is, instruments the use of which would be tantamount to tapping have the right to tape record their conversation. With the
the main line of a telephone. provision neither party could record.
a.! It refers to instruments whose installation or presence cannot
be presumed by the party or parties being overheard because,
by their very nature, they are not of common usage and their
purpose is precisely for tapping, intercepting or recording a
telephone conversation.
28.! An extension telephone is an instrument which is very common
especially now when the extended unit does not have to be connected
“by wire to the main telephone but can be moved from place to place
within a radius of a kilometer or more.
29.! A person should safely presume that the party he is calling at the
other end of the line probably has an extension telephone and he runs
the risk of a third party listening as in the case of a party line or a
telephone unit which shares its line with another.
30.! Ratkbun v.United States: Each party to a telephone conversation
takes the risk that the other party may have an extension telephone
and may allow another to overhear the conversation. No violation of
privacy in this case.
31.! Furthermore, it is a general rule that penal statutes must be construed
strictly in favor of the accused.
a.! Thus, in case of doubt as in the case at bar, on whether or not
an extension telephone is included in the phrase “device or
arrangement”, the penal statute must be constraed as not
including an extension telephone.
32.! People v. Purisima: The purpose is not to enable a guilty person to
escape punishment through a technicality but to provide a precise
definition of forbidden acts.
33.! A perusal of the Senate Congressional Records will show that not
only did our lawmakers not contemplate the inclusion of an
extension telephone as a prohibited “device or arrangement” but
of greater importance, they were more concerned with