CRIMINAL LAW CASE DIGEST/ GANAAN V. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, 145 SCRA 112
GANAAN V. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT,
145 SCRA 112
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
Mere act of listening to a telephone
conversation in an extension line is not punished by AntiWiretappingLaw. It can
be readily seen that our lawmakers intended to discourage, through punishment,
persons such as government authorities or representatives of organized groups
from installing devices in order to gather evidence for use in court or to
intimidate, blackmail or gain some unwarranted advantage over the telephone
users.
FACTS
This petition for
certiorari asks for an interpretation of Republic Act (RA) No. 4200, otherwise
known as the AntiWiretapping 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.
ISSUE
Whether or not an
extension telephone is among the prohibited devices in Section 1 of the Act, and
such that its use to overhear a private conversation would constitute unlawful
interception of communications between the two parties using a telephone line.
RULING
No.
The court held
that the law refers to a “tap” of a wire or cable or the use of a “deviee or
arrangement” for the purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or
recording the communication. There must be either a physical interruption
through a wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in
order to overhear, intercept, or record the spoken words.
Here, the court held that the phrase “any
other device or arrangement” in R.A, 4200 known as Anti-Wire Tapping Law does
not cover an extension line. The phrase “device or arrangement” in the
Anti-Wire Tapping Law should be interpreted to comprehend instruments of the
same or similar nature used to tap, intercept or record a telephone
conversation, not an extension line.
As to the sub-issue, the court held that
the Framers of R.A. 4200 were more concerned with penalizing the act of
recording a telephone conversation than merely listening thereto. Mere act of
listening to a telephone conversation in an extension line is not punished by
AntiWiretappingLaw. It can be readily seen that our lawmakers intended to discourage,
through punishment, persons such as government authorities or representatives
of organized groups from installing devices in order to gather evidence for use
in court or to intimidate, blackmail or gain some unwarranted advantage over
the telephone users.