Gaanan vs IAC

Facts: the controversy started when the complainant called Laconico for a settlement of the direct
assault case against the latter. However, upon that call, the petitioner Gaanan was requested by laconic
to secretly listen to the telephone conversation through a telephone extension so as to hear personally
the proposed conditions for the settlement involving an amount of money. Thereafter, upon receipt of
the money of the complainant, he was then arrested. The petitioner thereon executed an affidavit
stating that he heard complainant demand P8, 000 for the withdrawal of the case for direct assault. On
the other hand, complainant charged petitioner and Laconico with violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Act
knowing that the petitioner overheard the conversation without his complainant’s consent. The RTC
found petitioner and Laconico guilty of Section 1 of the said Act which was affirmed by the Intermediate
Appellate Court. Hence this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not an extension telephone is among the prohibited devices in Section 1 of R.A. 4200
otherwise known as the Anti-Wiretapping Act

Held:

No, an extension telephone is not to be included in the phrase “device or arrangement” that are
prohibited under Section 1 of R.A. 4200. The law refers to the use of a “device or arrangement” for the
purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording the communication. The court ruled that
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 held as in the same category and was not design for the same purpose stated. As a rule in the
statutory construction, in determining the true intent of the legislature, the particular clauses and
phrases of the statute should not be taken as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and
every part thereof must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts. Hence, the phrase
“device or arrangement”, although not exclusive to that enumerated therein, should be construed as
instruments use which equivalent to tapping the main line of a telephone whose presence cannot be
presumed by the party or parties being overheard.