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.

Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147