Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 86 views

    Gaanan VS IAC

    Uploaded by

    Angelina Gaveria
    This case involved a petition by Gaanan challenging his conviction for violating the Anti-Wiretapping Act by listening to a telephone conversation on an extension line without consent. The Trial Court and IAC both found Gaanan guilty. However, the Supreme Court ruled that an extension telephone is not one of the prohibited devices under the Act, as it does not tap into or interrupt the telephone line. The Court held that the phrase "device or arrangement" in the Act refers to instruments whose purpose is tapping or intercepting calls, not commonly used extension lines. The petition was granted and Gaanan was acquitted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gaanan VS IAC

    Uploaded by

    Angelina Gaveria
    86 views5 pages
    This case involved a petition by Gaanan challenging his conviction for violating the Anti-Wiretapping Act by listening to a telephone conversation on an extension line without consent. The Trial Court and IAC both found Gaanan guilty. However, the Supreme Court ruled that an extension telephone is not one of the prohibited devices under the Act, as it does not tap into or interrupt the telephone line. The Court held that the phrase "device or arrangement" in the Act refers to instruments whose purpose is tapping or intercepting calls, not commonly used extension lines. The petition was granted and Gaanan was acquitted.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a petition by Gaanan challenging his conviction for violating the Anti-Wiretapping Act by listening to a telephone conversation on an extension line without consent. The Trial Court and IAC both found Gaanan guilty. However, the Supreme Court ruled that an extension telephone is not one of the prohibited devices under the Act, as it does not tap into or interrupt the telephone line. The Court held that the phrase "device or arrangement" in the Act refers to instruments whose purpose is tapping or intercepting calls, not commonly used extension lines. The petition was granted and Gaanan was acquitted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    86 views5 pages

    Gaanan VS IAC

    Uploaded by

    Angelina Gaveria
    This case involved a petition by Gaanan challenging his conviction for violating the Anti-Wiretapping Act by listening to a telephone conversation on an extension line without consent. The Trial Court and IAC both found Gaanan guilty. However, the Supreme Court ruled that an extension telephone is not one of the prohibited devices under the Act, as it does not tap into or interrupt the telephone line. The Court held that the phrase "device or arrangement" in the Act refers to instruments whose purpose is tapping or intercepting calls, not commonly used extension lines. The petition was granted and Gaanan was acquitted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 5

    Gaanan vs.

    Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC)


    GR No. L-69809, October 16, 1986 [145 SCRA 112]

    FACTS:

    A direct assault case against Leonardo Laconico was filed


    by complainant Atty. Tito Pintor and his client Manuel
    Montebon. The said complainants made a telephone call
    to Laconico to give their terms for withdrawal of their
    complaint. Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC)

    Laconico, later on, called appellant Gaanan, who is also a


    lawyer, to come to his office to advise him about the
    proposed settlement. When complainant called up,
    Laconico requested appellant to secretly listen to the
    telephone conversation through a telephone extension so
    as to hear personally the proposed conditions for the
    settlement. After enumerating the conditions, several calls
    were made to finally confirm if the settlement is agreeable
    to both parties.

    As part of their agreement, Laconico has to give the


    money to the complainant's wife at the office of the
    Department of Public Highways. But, he insisted to give
    the money to the complainant himself.

    After receiving the money, the complainant was arrested


    by the agents of the Philippine Constabulary, who were
    alerted earlier before the exchange. Gaanan vs.
    Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC)

    Appellant stated on his affidavit that he heard complainant


    demand P8,000.00 for the withdrawal of the case for direct
    assault. Laconico attached the affidavit of appellant to the
    complainant for robbery/extortion which he filed against
    the complainant.

    In defense, complainant charged appellant and Laconico


    with violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Act as the appellant
    heard the telephone conversation without complainant's
    consent.

    Trial Court: both Gaanan and Laconico were guilty of


    violating Sect. 1 of RA No. 4200.
    IAC: affirmed the decision of the trial court.

    Hence, this petition. The case at bar involves an


    interpretation of the Republic Act No. 4200 or also known
    as Anti-Wiretapping Act. Petitioner contends that
    telephones or extension telephones are not included in the
    enumeration of "commonly known" listening or recording
    devices, nor do they belong to the same class of
    enumerated electronic devices contemplated by
    law. Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC)

    However, respondent argues that an extension telephone


    is embraced and covered by the term "device" within the
    context of the aforementioned law because it is not a part
    or portion of a complete set of a telephone apparatus.

    ISSUE:

    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. Gaanan vs. Intermediate
    Appellate Court (IAC)

    HELD:

    No.

    Section 1 of Republic Act No. 4200


    It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant
    or not in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding
    sentence, to knowingly possess any tape record, wire
    record, disc record, or any other such record, or copies
    thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured
    either before or after the effective date of this Act in the
    manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for
    any other person or persons; or to communicate the
    contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish
    transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any
    other person: Provided, That the use of such record or any
    copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal
    investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in section 3
    hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition. Gaanan
    vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC)

    The law refers to a "tap" of a wire or cable or the use of a


    "device 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.

    An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same


    category as a dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices
    enumerated in Section 1 of RA No. 4200 as the use
    thereof cannot be considered as "tapping" the wire or
    cable of a telephone line.

    Hence, the phrase "device or arrangement", although not


    exclusive to that enumerated therein, should be construed
    to comprehend instruments of the same or similar nature,
    that is, instruments the use of which would be tantamount
    to tapping the main line of a telephone. It refers to
    instruments whose installation or presence cannot be
    presumed by the party or parties being overheard
    because, by their very nature, they are not of common
    usage and their purpose is precisely for tapping,
    intercepting or recording a telephone
    conversation. Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
    (IAC)

    The petition is granted and the petitioner is acquitted of


    the crime of violation of Republic Act No. 4200.

    You might also like