Scribd
Upload
28 views1 page

Extension Phone Use and RA 4200 Ruling

The document discusses a case where a lawyer listened to a private phone conversation on a telephone extension without consent. The lower court found the lawyer guilty of violating the Anti-Wiretapping Act. However, the Supreme Court ruled that a telephone extension is not one of the prohibited devices under the Act, so its use does not constitute unlawful interception. The petition was granted and the lawyer was acquitted.

Uploaded by

Canete Jellie Grace
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
28 views1 page

Extension Phone Use and RA 4200 Ruling

The document discusses a case where a lawyer listened to a private phone conversation on a telephone extension without consent. The lower court found the lawyer guilty of violating the Anti-Wiretapping Act. However, the Supreme Court ruled that a telephone extension is not one of the prohibited devices under the Act, so its use does not constitute unlawful interception. The petition was granted and the lawyer was acquitted.

Uploaded by

Canete Jellie Grace
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

L-69809 October 16, 1986


EDGARDO A. GAANAN, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS:
Complainant Atty. Tito Pintor and his client Manuel Montebon offered to withdraw the complaint
for direct assault they filed against Laconico after demanding P8,000 from him. This demand
was heard by Atty. Gaanan through a telephone extension as requested by Laconico so as to
personally hear the proposed conditions for the settlement. Atty. Pintor was subsequently
arrested in an entrapment operation upon receipt of the money. Since Atty. Gaanan listened to
the telephone conversation without complainant''s consent, complainant charged Gaanan and
Laconico with violation of the Anti- Wiretapping Act (RA 4200). The lower courtfound both
Gaanan and Laconico guilty of violating Section 1 of Republic Act No. 4200. The Intermediate
Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an extension telephone is among the prohibited devices in Section 1 of the Act,
such that its use to overhear a private conversation would constitute unlawful interception of
communications between the two parties using a telephone line.

RULING:
No, An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone, dictagraph
or the other devices enumerated in Section 1 of RA No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be
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 be there for ordinary office use.
It is a general rule that penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the accused. 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 construed as not including an
extension telephone.
The mere act of listening, in order to be punishable must strictly be with the use of the
enumerated devices in RA No. 4200 or others of similar nature. The petition is GRANTED. The
decision of the then Intermediate Appellate Court dated August 16, 1984 is ANNULLED and
SET ASIDE. The petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of violation of Rep. Act No. 4200,
otherwise known as the Anti-Wiretapping Act.

You might also like