Case Summary (G.R. No. 204793)
Petitioner
Edgardo A. Gaanan was accused, convicted, and sentenced for violating Section 1 of RA No. 4200 based on his having listened to a private telephone call on an extension line at the request of Atty. Laconico and later executed an affidavit describing the conversation.
Respondent
The People of the Philippines prosecuted Gaanan for unlawful interception of communications under RA No. 4200. The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s conviction, holding that the conversation was private and that the telephone extension used by the petitioner fell within the statute’s phrase “device or arrangement.”
Key Dates
Relevant factual dates: the principal telephone conversations and events occurred on October 22, 1975 (initial call and related events). Trial and appellate proceedings culminated before the Court’s decision in 1986. (The decision date itself is not included in this initial header per instruction.)
Applicable Law and Constitution
Primary statute: Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Act), specifically Section 1, which penalizes tapping any wire or cable or, “by using any other device or arrangement,” secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording private communications and prohibits possession, replay, dissemination or transcription of such records except when used as evidence in certain proceedings. Applicable constitutional framework for judicial reasoning: the 1973 Constitution (the operative constitution at the time the decision was rendered).
Facts
Atty. Pintor and his client Montebon discussed settlement terms in Pintor’s home and Pintor telephoned Laconico. Laconico summoned petitioner Gaanan to his office and asked Gaanan to secretly listen to Pintor’s telephone conversation via a telephone extension so Laconico could hear the proposed settlement terms. Gaanan listened and later executed an affidavit recounting the conversation. Pintor charged Gaanan and Laconico under RA No. 4200. At trial both were convicted; the appellate court affirmed.
Procedural History
Trial court convicted Gaanan and Laconico under Section 1 of RA No. 4200 and imposed one year imprisonment each with costs. The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the conviction on August 16, 1984, finding the communication private, the petitioner had overheard without complainant’s consent, and the extension telephone qualified as a prohibited “device or arrangement.” The petitioner sought certiorari relief to the Supreme Court challenging (a) privacy of the call, (b) whether an extension telephone is a covered “device or arrangement,” (c) whether petitioner had authority to listen, and (d) alleged ambiguity in RA No. 4200.
Issue Presented
Whether an extension telephone constitutes a prohibited “device or arrangement” under Section 1 of RA No. 4200 such that use of an extension to overhear a private telephone conversation constitutes unlawful interception and criminal liability thereunder.
Statutory Text and Statutory Construction Principles
Section 1 of RA No. 4200 proscribes “tapping any wire or cable or by using any other device or arrangement” to secretly overhear, intercept or record private communications and enumerates sample devices “commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape-recorder, or however otherwise described.” As a penal statute, RA No. 4200 must be strictly construed in favor of the accused; ambiguous provisions excluding clearly familiar, ordinary devices that do not perform the same function as the enumerated intercepting/recording instruments are to be interpreted narrowly.
Court’s Analysis of “Device or Arrangement”
The Court analyzed whether an extension telephone is akin to the enumerated instruments (which are specialized devices used to intercept or record communications) or whether it is a common, ordinary telephone accessory whose presence should be expected by callers. The Court emphasized that “device or arrangement” should be read to include instruments of the same or similar nature as the enumerated ones—i.e., instruments whose use is tantamount to tapping the main telephone line and whose installation or presence cannot be presumed by the party being called.
Application of Precedent and Legislative History
The Court relied on statutory construction principles and cited precedent recognizing that particularization followed by a general expression is ordinarily restricted to the particular items enumerated. It also considered legislative history in the Congressional Record showing that lawmakers were concerned primarily with penalizing recording and deliberate interception devices and that telephones (including party lines) were discussed and ultimately not included among enumerated devices. The Court referenced Rathbun v. United States to illustrate that callers assume the risk that the called party may have an extension permitting others to overhear; under that rationale, mere use of an extension does not constitute interception.
Policy Considerations and Practical Effects
The Court noted policy consequences of a contrary ruling: criminalizing ordinary extension use could chill citizens from reporting crimes or cooperating with authorities, would criminalize ordinary office practices (secretaries or
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 204793)
Title, Citation and Court
- G.R. No. 69809; Decision date: October 16, 1986; Reported at 229 Phil. 139, Second Division.
- Decision authored by Justice Gutierrez, Jr.
- Parties: Edgardo A. Gaanan (petitioner) versus the Intermediate Appellate Court and the People of the Philippines (respondents).
Procedural Posture
- Trial court (unnamed) convicted Gaanan and co-accused Leonardo Laconico of violating Section 1, Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Act), sentencing each to one (1) year imprisonment with costs (decision dated November 22, 1982).
- Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s conviction on August 16, 1984.
- Petitioner filed this petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, challenging the appellate decision and seeking relief from the conviction under RA No. 4200.
- Supreme Court granted the petition: annulled and set aside the appellate court decision and acquitted the petitioner of the crime under RA No. 4200.
Facts (as presented by the People and undisputed by petitioner)
- On the morning of October 22, 1975, Atty. Tito Pintor (complainant) and his client Manuel Montebon discussed terms to withdraw a direct assault complaint against Leonardo Laconico in Pintor’s living room.
- After deciding proposed conditions, Pintor telephoned Laconico.
- Laconico telephoned appellant (Atty. Edgardo A. Gaanan) to come to his office to advise on settlement because Laconico’s regular lawyer was away.
- At Laconico’s office, Laconico requested Gaanan to secretly listen to the telephone conversation through a telephone extension to hear the proposed settlement conditions. Gaanan listened and heard Pintor enumerate specific demands (including P8,000 and breakdown of allotments, public apology, transfers, affidavits of desistance, restrictions on publicity, and P2,000 attorney’s fees).
- Twenty minutes later Pintor called again; Laconico agreed to conditions and told Pintor to wait for instructions on where to deliver the money.
- A subsequent instruction by Pintor led to an arranged delivery of money; when Pintor received the money at the Igloo Restaurant, he was arrested by agents of the Philippine Constabulary.
- Gaanan executed an affidavit attesting to what he heard and Laconico attached it to a complaint for robbery/extortion against Pintor.
- Pintor then charged Gaanan and Laconico with violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Act because Gaanan allegedly listened without Pintor’s consent.
Statutory Provision at Issue (Section 1, Republic Act No. 4200)
- Text of Section 1 as quoted in the decision:
- Prohibits any person, not authorized by all parties to any private communication, from tapping any wire or cable or by using any other device or arrangement to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word.
- Enumerates examples: “a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape-recorder, or however otherwise described.”
- Criminalizes possession, replaying, communicating, or furnishing records secured in the prohibited manner, but provides that use of such record as evidence in civil or criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in Section 3 is not covered by the prohibition.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- (a) Whether the telephone conversation between Pintor and Laconico was private in nature.
- (b) Whether an extension telephone is covered by the term “device or arrangement” under Section 1 of RA No. 4200.
- (c) Whether petitioner had authority to listen or overhear the telephone conversation.
- (d) Whether RA No. 4200 is ambiguous and thus should be construed in favor of the petitioner.
Trial Court and Appellate Court Findings (as summarized)
- Both trial court and Intermediate Appellate Court found:
- The telephone communication was private and thus covered by RA No. 4200.
- Gaanan overheard the communication without Pintor’s consent.
- The extension telephone used by Gaanan was covered within the term “device” in Section 1 of RA No. 4200.
- Both courts convicted Gaanan and Laconico and imposed one (1) year imprisonment with costs.
Petitioner’s Contentions (as presented in the petition)
- Telephone extensions are not among the devices enumerated in Section 1 and do not belong to the same class as the enumerated devices (dictaphone, dictagraph, detectaphone, walkie-talkie, tape-recorder).
- Telephones and telephone extensions were common, widely used instruments at the time the bill was considered (1964), and the final statute deliberately omitted telephones from the enumeration; telephone party lines were intentionally deleted.
- The phrase “any other device or arrangement” should be limited to instruments of the same or similar nature as those enumerated—i.e., those whose use would be tantamount to tapping the main line and whose presence or installation wo