GAANAN V.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
No. L-69809, October 16, 1986, Gutierrez Jr., J.
TOPIC: ANTI-WIRETAPPING
PROVISION APPLICABLE:
Sec 1, RA 4200. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by
all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire
or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear,
intercept, or record such communication or spoken word using a device
commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or walkie-talkie or tape
recorder, or however otherwise described.
SUMMARY OF THE CASE:
The case primarily calls for the proper interpretation of RA 4200,
otherwise known as the “Anti-Wiretapping Act.” The petitioners were charged
with violating the said act after Atty. Gaanan listened to the telephone
conversation between Atty. Pintor and Laconico using a telephone
extension. Complainant contends that a telephone extension is one of the
“devices” mentioned in Sec. 1 of RA 4200. Both the lower court and IAC
found the petitioners guilty but the SC reversed their decisions. According to
the Court, the law contemplates the “tapping” of a wire or cable or using of a
“device or arrangement” for the purpose of secretly overhearing,
intercepting, or recording the information. The devices included in the Act
are those that cause a physical interruption through a wiretap or those that
were deliberately installed for the purpose of overhearing, intercepting, or
recording the spoken words. Telephone extensions are not installed for that
said purpose and are therefore not included in the Act.
FACTS:
 Case asks for the interpretation of RA 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Act).
 On October 22, 1975, complainant Atty. Pintor and his client
Montebon were discussing the terms for the withdrawal for the
complaint for direct assault which they filed with the Office of the
City Fiscal of Cebu against Laconico.
o After discussing, complainant made a telephone call to
Laconico.
o Laconico called Gaanan (appellant), who is a lawyer, to
come to his office and advise him on the settlement
presented by the complainant.
o 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.
 Complainant was arrested during the delivery of the money subject
of the settlement. Appellant executed an affidavit stating that he
heard complainant demand P8,000 for the withdrawal of the case
for direct assault.
o Since he listened to the conversation without
complainant’s consent, appellant was charged with
violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Act.
 Lower court: found both Gaanan and Laconico guilty and sentenced
them to 1 year imprisonment with costs.
 IAC: affirmed the decision of the trial court. IAC stated that the
extension telephone used to overhear the telephone conversation
between complainant and Laconico is covered in the term “device”
as provided in RA 4200.
ISSUES AND HELD:
1. WON telephone conversation between the complainant and
accused Laconico was private in nature and WON Gaanan had
authority to listen or overhear said telephone conversation.
 No question that the telephone conversation between
complainant and accused was “private” in the sense that
the words uttered were made between one person and
another as distinguished from words between a speaker
and a public.
 Undisputed that only one of the parties gave the petitioner
the authority to listen to and overhear the caller’s message
with the use of an extension telephone line.
2. WON an extension telephone is covered by the term “device or
arrangement” under RA 4200. (MAIN) - NO
 WON listening over a telephone line would be punishable
was discussed on the floor of the Senate.
o YET, when the bill was finalized into statute, no
mention was made of telephones in the
enumeration of devices “commonly known as a
Dictaphone or dictagraph, detectaphone or walkie
talkie or tape recorder or however otherwise
described.”
o Omission was not mere oversight. Telephone
party lines were intentionally deleted from the Act.
 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.
o 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.
 o Telephone extension in the case was not the crime of violation of RA 4200 otherwise known as the Anti-Wiretapping
installed for that purpose, it just happened to be Act.
there for ordinary office use.
 Although enumeration in the laws is not exclusive, it
should be construed to comprehend instruments of the
same or similar nature.
o 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.
o A person should safely presume that a party he is
calling at the other end of the line probably has
an extension telephone and he runs the risk of a
third party listening as in the case of a party line
or a telephone unit which shares its line with
another. This was further discussed in Rathbun v.
United States.

3. WON RA 4200 is ambiguous and should be construed in favor of

Gaanan. – YES
 General rule: penal statues must be construed strictly in
favor of the accused. In case of doubt, the penal statute
must be construed as not including an extension
telephone.
 Senate Congressional Records will show that not only did
our lawmakers not contemplate the inclusion of an
extension telephone as a prohibited “device or
arrangement” but of greater importance, they were more
concerned with the penalizing of the act of RECORDING
rather than act of merely listening to a telephone
conversation.
 Intended to discourage persons from installing devices in
order to gather evidence for use in court or to intimidate,
blackmail, or gain some unwarranted advantage over
telephone users.
 The mere act of listening, in order to be punishable must
strictly be with the use of the enumerated devices in RA
4200 or others of similar nature.

RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the then

IAC is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED of