Case Digest (G.R. No. L-69809)
Facts:
Edgardo A. Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 69809, October 16, 1986, the Supreme Court Second Division, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Edgardo A. Gaanan (a lawyer) was charged under Republic Act No. 4200 (the Anti‑Wiretapping Act) after he overheard by means of a telephone extension a conversation between complainant Atty. Tito Pintor (speaking with his client Manuel Montebon) and respondent Atty. Laconico concerning terms for withdrawal of a direct assault complaint. Laconico had summoned petitioner to his office and requested that petitioner secretly listen in “through a telephone extension” while Laconico took Pintor’s call; petitioner later executed an affidavit recounting the alleged extortionate demands and that affidavit was attached to Laconico’s complaint for robbery/extortion.
Pintor filed charges against both Laconico and petitioner for violating Section 1 of RA No. 4200. After trial on the merits the trial court, in a decision dated November 22, 1982, found both Gaanan and Laconico guilty of violating Section 1 and sentenced each to one year imprisonment with costs. The petitioner appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court.
On August 16, 1984 the Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the conviction, holding that (a) the communication between Pintor and Laconico was private and therefore within the protection of RA No. 4200; (b) petitioner overheard that communication without Pintor’s consent; and (c) the extension telephone used by petitioner fell within the statutory phrase “device or arrangement” in Section 1 of RA No. 4200.
Petitioner thereafter filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court challenging the Intermediate Appellate Court’s decision. He raised four principal issues: (1) whether the telephone conversation was private; (2) whether an extension telephone is covered by the phrase “device or arrangement” in Section 1 of RA No....(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the telephone conversation between complainant Pintor and accused Laconico a “private communication” within the meaning of Section 1 of RA No. 4200?
- Does an extension telephone fall within the statutory phrase “device or arrangement” in Section 1 of RA No. 4200 so as to make its use for overhearing a punishable interception?
- Was petitioner authorized to listen to the conversation and, if not, does that authorization (or lack thereof) render him criminally liable under Section 1?
- Is RA No. 4200 ambiguous on the inclusion of extension telephones and, if ambiguo...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)