Gaanan vs.

Intermediate Appellate Court

145 SCRA 112 (1986)

FACTS:

C o m p l ai n an t A t t y. P i n t o r an d h i s c l i e n t M o n t e b o
n , w e r e i n t h e l i vi n g r o o m o f complainant’s residence,
discussing the terms from the withdrawal of the complaint
for direct assault which they filed against Laconico. After they
decided on the conditions, Atty. Pintor made a phone call to
Laconico. That same morning, Laconico telephoned Atty.
Gaanan to come to his office and advise him on the settlement of the
direct assault case. When Atty. Pintor called, Laconico requested
Atty. Gaanan to secretly listen to the telephone conversation
through a telephone extension so as to hear personally the
proposed conditions for the settlement. Twenty minutes later,
Atty. Pinto called up again to ask Laconico if he was agreeable
to the conditions. Laconico agreed. An amount of P5,000 as
settlement money was agreed upon. He was instructed to give
the money to give the money to Atty. Pintor’s wife at the office
of the Department of Public Highways. However, Laconico
insisted that Atty. Pintor himself should receive the
money. However, when Atty. Pintor received the money, he
was arrested by agents of the Philippine Constabulary. On the
following day, Atty. Gaanan executed an affidavit that he
heard complainant Atty. Pintor demand P8,000 for the
withdrawal of the case for direct assault. Laconico
attached the affidavit to the complaint for robbery/extortion which he
filed against Atty. Pintor. Since Atty. Gaanan listened to the
telephone conversation without Atty. Pintor’s consent, Atty.Pintor
charged Atty. Gaanan and Laconico with violation of the Anti-
Wiretapping Act (R.A. No. 4200).Atty. Gaanan and Laconico
were found guilty by the trial court. The decision was
affirmed by the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) stating
that the “extension telephone” which was used to overhear the
telephone conversation was covered in the term “device”
as provided in R.A. No. 4200.
ISSUE:

Whether or not an extension telephone is among the prohibited

device in Section 1 of the Anti-Wiretapping 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:

T h e m ai n i s s u e r e vo l ve s ar o u n d t h e m e an i n g o f
t h e p h r as e “ an y o t h e r d e vi c e o r a r r an g e m e n t . ” T h e
l aw r e fe r s t o a “ t ap ” o f a w i r e o r c ab l e o r t h e u s e of
a “ d e vi c e o r ar r an g e m e n t ” fo r t h e p u r p o s e o f s e c r e t
l y o ve r h e ar i n g , i n t e r c e p t i n g , o r r e c o r d i n g t h e commu
nication. There must be either a physical interruption
through a wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or
arrangement in order to overhear, intercept, or record the
spokenwords.

A n e xt e n s i o n t e l e p h o n e c an n o t b e p l a c e d i n t h e
s am e c at e g o r y as a d i c t ap h o n e , dictagraph or the other
device enumerated un Section 1 of R.A. 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. The phrase “device
or arrangement”, although not exclusive to that enumerated,
should be construed to comprehend instruments of the same or
similar nature, that is, instruments the use of which would
be tantamount to tapping the main line of a
telephone. 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.

An extension telephone is an instrument which is very

common especially now whenthe extended unit does not
have to be connected by wire to the main telephone but
can bemoved from place to place within a radius of a kilometer or
more.An extension telephone is not among such device or
arrangements covered by Section 1 of R.A No. 4200.