Anti-Wiretapping Act

EDGARDO A. GAANAN, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
G.R. No. L-69809 | October 16, 1986
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.

DOCTRINE:

The phrase "device or arrangement" in Section 1 of RA No. 4200, although not exclusive to that
enumerated therein, 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.

FACTS:

On the morning of October 22, 1975, Atty. Tito Pintor and his client Manuel Montebon were at
Pintor's residence discussing the withdrawal of a complaint for direct assault against Leonardo
Laconico. They agreed on conditions and Pintor called Laconico to discuss. Meanwhile,
Laconico, needing legal advice due to his lawyer being away, called another lawyer, the
appellant, to his office. Laconico asked the appellant to secretly listen in on the conversation with
Pintor through an extension telephone.

During the call, Pintor outlined conditions for dropping the complaint, including an increased
sum of money, a public apology, donations, and other terms. Laconico agreed to these conditions.
Pintor instructed Laconico to deliver the money to his wife at a specific location, but Laconico
insisted Pintor should receive it personally. When Pintor went to collect the money, he was
arrested by Philippine Constabulary agents.

The next day, the appellant provided an affidavit stating he had overheard Pintor demanding
money for dropping the case. Laconico attached this affidavit to a complaint he filed against
Pintor for robbery/extortion. Pintor then charged both Laconico and the appellant with violating
the Anti-Wiretapping Act because the appellant listened in on the conversation without his
consent.

ISSUE:
Is an extension telephone covered by the term "device or arrangement" under Rep. Act No. 4200
(Anti-Wiretapping Law)?

RULING:

NO. The use of an extension telephone is not covered by the Anti-Wiretapping Law.

There is no question that the telephone conversation between complainant Atty. Pintor and
accused Atty. Laconico was "private" and it is also undisputed that only one of the parties gave
the petitioner the authority to listen to and overhear the caller's message with the use of an
extension telephone line.

However, the law refers to a "tap" of a wire or cable or the use of a "device or arrangement" for
the purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording the communication. 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 spoken words.

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.

Thus, the petition was granted. The petitioner is ACQUITTED of the crime of violation of
Republic Act No. 4200.