13. Gaanan vs. IAC G.R. No.

L-69809 October 16, 1986 When complainant received the money at the Igloo Restaurant, complainant
was arrested by agents of the Philippine Constabulary.
Gutierrez, Jr., J.
This petition for certiorari asks for an interpretation of RA No. 4200, otherwise Gaanan executed on the ff day an affidavit stating that he heard complainant
known as the Anti-Wiretapping Act, on the issue of whether or not an extension demand P8k for the withdrawal of the case for direct assault. Laconico attached
telephone is among the prohibited devices in Section 1 of the Act, such that its the affidavit of appellant to the complainant for robbery/extortion which he
use to overhear a private conversation would constitute unlawful interception filed against complainant.
of communications between the two parties using a telephone line.
FACTS Since Gaanan listened to the telephone conversation without his consent, Atty.
October 22, 1975: Complainant Atty. Tito Pintor and his client Manuel Montebon Pintor charged Gaanan and Laconico with violation of the RA 4200
discussed the terms for the withdrawal of the complaint for direct assault which
they filed with the Office of the City Fiscal of Cebu against Atty. Leonardo RTC found both Gaanan and Laconico guilty of violating S1 of RA 4200: The two
Laconico. After the discussion, complainant made a telephone call to Laconico. were each sentenced to 1 year imprisonment with costs.

That same morning, Laconico telephoned appellant Atty EDGARDO GAANAN, to IAC affirmed the decision of the trial court, holding that the communication
come to his office and advise him on the settlement of the direct assault case. between the complainant and accused Laconico was private in nature and,
Gaanan went to the office of Laconico where he was briefed about the problem. therefore, covered by RA 4200; that the petitioner overheard such
communication without the knowledge and consent of the complainant; and
When complainant called up, Laconico requested appellant to secretly listen to that the extension telephone which was used by the petitioner to overhear the
the telephone conversation through a telephone extension so as to hear telephone conversation between complainant and Laconico is covered in the
personally the proposed conditions for the settlement. term "device' as provided in RA 4200.

Appellant heard complainant enumerate the conditions for withdrawal of the Hence this petition for certiorari
complaint for direct assault. Some of which are:
Increase of demand from 5k to 8k P's ARGUMENTS:
1k to be given to the Don Bosco Faculty Club Telephones or extension telephones are NOT included in the enumeration of
Transfer of son of Laconico to another school or section commonly known listening or recording devices, nor do they belong to the
same class of enumerated electronic devices contemplated by law. He notes that
Affidavit of desistance of Laconico on the maltreatment case filed earlier
when the law was passed in 1964, telephones and extension telephones were
against Montebon, whereas Montebons affidavit of desistance to be
already widely used.
filed later
2k attorneys fees for Pintor Rs' ARGUMENTS:
An extension telephone is embraced and covered by the term device within
Laconico agreed to the conditions. Complainant instructed Laconico to give the the context of RA 4200 because it is NOT part or portion of a complete set of a
money to his wife at the office of the then Department of Public Highways. telephone apparatus. It is a separate device and distinct set of a movable
Laconico who earlier alerted his friend, Colonel Zulueta of the Criminal apparatus.
Investigation Service of the Philippine Constabulary, insisted that complainant
himself should receive the money.
WON the telephone conversation between Pintor and Laconico was private or reps of organized groups from installing devices in order to gather
in nature. evidence for use in court to intimidate, blackmail, or gain some
Held: YES unwarranted advantage over the telephone users.
The telephone conversation between Atty. Pintor and Atty. Laconico was c) It should be noted that the issue WON listening over a telephone party
"private" in the sense that the words uttered were made between one person line would be punishable was discussed on the floor of the Senate. Yet,
and another as distinguished from words between a speaker and a public. It is when the bill was finalized into a statute, no mention was made of
also undisputed that only one of the parties gave the P the authority to listen to telephones in the enumeration of devices "commonly known as a
and overhear the caller's message with the use of an extension telephone line. dictaphone or dictagraph, detectaphone or walkie talkie or tape
Obviously, Pintor, a member of the PH bar, would not have discussed the alleged recorder or however otherwise described." The omission therefore
demand for an P8k consideration in order to have his client withdraw a direct could be said as not mere oversight. Telephone party lines were
assault charge against Atty. Laconico filed with the Cebu City Fiscal's Office if he intentionally deleted from the provisions of the Act.
knew that another lawyer was also listening.
WON RA 4200 should be construed in favor of P.
WON an extension telephone is covered by the term device or Held: YES
arrangement. As a general rule, penal statutes must be construed in favor of the accused. Thus,
Held: NO in case of doubt as in this case, the penal statue must be construed as NOT
(1) The law refers to a tap of a wire cable or the use of a device or including an extension telephone.
arrangement for the purpose of secretly overhearing the communication.
There must be either: (1) physical interruption through a wiretap or (2) Note: Section 1 of Rep. Act No. 4200 provides:
deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to overhear, It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any
intercept, or record the spoken words: private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable or by using any
a) An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as those other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
enumerated in the law, because the use of such cannot be considered as communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a
tapping the wire or cable of the telephone line dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape-recorder, or
b) The telephone extension was not installed for that purpose. It just however otherwise described:
happened to be there for ordinary office use.
c) An extension telephone is a very common instrument now. A person It shall be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or acts
should safely that the party he is calling probably has an ext. telephone penalized in the next preceeding sentence, to knowingly possess any tape
(2) The phrase device or arrangement in Sec 1, although not exclusive to that record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of
enumeration, should be construed to comprehend instruments of the SAME or any communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective
SIMILAR nature (those instruments, the use of which would be tantamount to date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for
tapping) any other person or persons; or to communicate the contents thereof, either
a) Statcon Rule: In order to determine the true intent of the legislature, the verbally or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or
particular clauses and phrases of the statute should not be taken as partial, to any other person: Provided, that the use of such record or any copies
detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part thereof thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses
must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts. mentioned in Section 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition.
b) The lawmakers intended to discourage persons such as govt authorities