GAANAN VS IAC

G.R. No. L-69809 | October 16, 1986

Digested by: Datu Jordan A. Sinsuat II

Facts:
Attorney. After demanding P8,000 from Laconico, Pintor and Montebon made
the offer to rescind the direct assault case they had filed against him. In order to
directly hear the suggested terms for the settlement, Laconico requested that Atty.
Gaanan hear this demand over a phone extension. Attorney.
After receiving the money, Pintor was later detained in an entrapment
operation by Atty. Without the complainant's permission, Gaanan listened to the
phone call. The complainant accused Gaanan and Laconico of breaking the violation
of the Anti-Wiretapping Act (RA 4200).

Contention/s:
This case involves the interpretation of Republic Act No. 4200, also known as
the Anti-Wiretapping Act. The petitioner, Edgardo Gaanan, questions whether an
extension telephone is considered a prohibited device under the Act. The case arose
from a telephone conversation between complainant Atty. Tito Pintor and accused
Atty. Laconico, which Gaanan overheard using an extension telephone. Gaanan was
charged with violating the Anti-Wiretapping Act. The trial court found Gaanan
guilty, and the decision was affirmed by the Intermediate Appellate Court. The
petitioner appeals the decision, arguing that an extension telephone is not covered
by the Act.

Issue/s:
Whether “any other device or arrangement” includes extension phones and
listening thru it is a violation of RA 4200.

Ruling:
No. 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.