Case Digest (A.C. No. 11550)
Facts:
On October 22, 1975 at Cebu City, Atty. Tito Pintor and his client, Manuel Montebon, discussed terms for withdrawing a direct assault complaint against Leonardo Laconico at Pintor’s residence. After negotiating an increase from ₱5,000 to ₱8,000 with detailed conditions, Pintor telephoned Laconico. Thereupon, Laconico summoned his substitute counsel, Edgardo Gaanan, to his office and secretly had him listen via a telephone extension to the ongoing call. Gaanan heard the full list of demands and later executed an affidavit to that effect. When Pintor collected the money at the Igloo Restaurant, Philippine Constabulary agents arrested him for extortion. Laconico filed a complaint against both Pintor and Gaanan for violating Section 1 of Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Act). The Regional Trial Court convicted Gaanan and Laconico on November 22, 1982, sentencing each to one year’s imprisonment. The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed on August 16, 1984, holding that the ov
...
Case Digest (A.C. No. 11550)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- On October 22, 1975, Atty. Tito Pintor and his client discussed terms for withdrawing a direct assault complaint against Leonardo Laconico via telephone.
- Laconico asked petitioner Atty. Edgardo Gaanan to listen secretly to the call using an extension telephone, during which Gaanan overheard proposed extortion demands totaling ₱8,000.00.
- Procedural History
- Pintor filed complaint under Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Act) against Laconico and Gaanan for unauthorized interception.
- Trial court (November 22, 1982) convicted both respondents of violating Section 1, RA 4200, sentencing them to one year imprisonment.
- Intermediate Appellate Court (August 16, 1984) affirmed, holding the extension telephone a prohibited “device or arrangement.”
- Gaanan filed petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the appellate ruling.
Issues:
- Nature of the Communication
- Whether the telephone conversation between Pintor and Laconico was “private” under RA 4200.
- Scope of “Device or Arrangement”
- Whether an extension telephone constitutes a prohibited “device or arrangement” in Section 1 of RA 4200.
- Authority of the Listener
- Whether Gaanan had lawful authority to overhear the conversation.
- Ambiguity of RA 4200
- Whether the Anti-Wiretapping Act’s language is ambiguous and should be construed in favor of the petitioner.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)