Case Digest

Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court and People of the Philippines

This petition for certiorari asks for an interpretation of RA 4200, otherwise known as the Anti-
Wiretapping Act, on the issue of whether or not an extension telephone is among the prohibited devices
in Section 1 of the Act, such that its use to overhear a private conversation would constitute unlawful
interception of communications between the two parties using a telephone line.

Facts:

In the morning of October 22, 1975, complainant Atty. Pintor and his client Montebon were in the living
room of complainants residence discussing the terms for the withdrawal of the complaint of direct
assault against Laconico. After settling the conditions, they called Laconico to communicate the
proposition. That same morning, Laconico called appellant, who is a lawyer, to come to his office to
advise the former with said proposition. When complainant called up, Laconico told appellant to secretly
listen to the telephone conversation through telephone extension so as to hear personally the proposed
conditions for the settlement. Laconico and complainant then had arrangements for the delivery of the
money requested by the latter, which the former had set up with the Criminal Investigation Service of
the Philippine Constabulary to arrest the latter for said extortion.

After the trial on the merits, the lower court, found both Gaanan, appellant, and Laconico guilty of
violating Section 1 of RA 4200. On appeal the decision was affirmed by the then Intermediate Appellate
Court, Court of Appeals now, holding that the communication between the complainant and the
accused Laconico was private; that petitioner overheard such communication without the knowledge
and consent of the complainant; and that the extension telephone is covered by the term “device or
arrangement” under RA 4200.

Issues:

A) WON the telephone conversation was private in nature;

B) WON an extension telephone is covered by the term “device or arrangement” under RA4200

C) WON the petitioner had authority to listen or overhear said conversation; and

D) WON RA 4200 is ambiguous and should be construed in favor of petitioner.

Ruling:

We rule for the petitioner.

There is no question that the conversation was private.

However, because of technical problems, telephone users encounter problems called “crossed lines”/
An unwary citizen who happens to pick up his telephone and who overhears the details of a crime might
hesitate to inform the police authorities if he knows that he could be accused under RA 4200 of using his
own telephone to overhear a private communication between criminals. It is clearly not the intention of
the law.
Extension telephones cannot be considered as being in the classification as the device or arrangement
within the meaning of the Republic Act. The omission of the telephone extensions on the enumeration
on the bill was intentionally done. Furthermore, it cannot be placed on the same category as
Dictaphone, dictagraph, etc, enumerated in the Act as the use thereof cannot be considered as
“tapping” the wire or cable of a telephone line.

Ebralinag, et. Al., v Division Schools Superintendent of Cebu

Special civil actions for certiorari, Mandamus, and Prohibition raise the same issue, won children who
are members of a religious sect known as Jehovah’s Witnesses may be expelled from school, for
refusing, on account of religious belief, as Jehovah’s Witnesses, to take part in the flag ceremony which
includes playing or singing the Philippine National Anthem, saluting the Philippine flag and reciting the
patriotic pledge.

Such sect, admittedly ‘