Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court (GR# L-69809, Oct. 16, 1986)

    Uploaded by

    JoJO
    Appellant Gaanan, a lawyer, listened to a telephone conversation between complainant Atty. Pintor and Leonardo Laconico through a telephone extension in Laconico's office at Laconico's request. Pintor charged both Gaanan and Laconico with violating the Anti-Wiretapping Act. The court found that an extension telephone is a common device and not covered under the Act as it was not deliberately installed to intercept communications. Simply listening through an extension telephone that happens to be present does not constitute wiretapping as defined in the Act. The court ruled that Gaanan was not guilty of violating the Anti-Wiretapping Act through his use of the extension telephone.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved

    Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court (GR# L-69809, Oct. 16, 1986)

    Uploaded by

    JoJO
    30 views1 page
    Appellant Gaanan, a lawyer, listened to a telephone conversation between complainant Atty. Pintor and Leonardo Laconico through a telephone extension in Laconico's office at Laconico's request. Pintor charged both Gaanan and Laconico with violating the Anti-Wiretapping Act. The court found that an extension telephone is a common device and not covered under the Act as it was not deliberately installed to intercept communications. Simply listening through an extension telephone that happens to be present does not constitute wiretapping as defined in the Act. The court ruled that Gaanan was not guilty of violating the Anti-Wiretapping Act through his use of the extension telephone.

    Original Description:

    On

    Original Title

    18.ObligadoCD_No.-78

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Appellant Gaanan, a lawyer, listened to a telephone conversation between complainant Atty. Pintor and Leonardo Laconico through a telephone extension in Laconico's office at Laconico's request. Pintor charged both Gaanan and Laconico with violating the Anti-Wiretapping Act. The court found that an extension telephone is a common device and not covered under the Act as it was not deliberately installed to intercept communications. Simply listening through an extension telephone that happens to be present does not constitute wiretapping as defined in the Act. The court ruled that Gaanan was not guilty of violating the Anti-Wiretapping Act through his use of the extension telephone.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    30 views1 page

    Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court (GR# L-69809, Oct. 16, 1986)

    Uploaded by

    JoJO
    Appellant Gaanan, a lawyer, listened to a telephone conversation between complainant Atty. Pintor and Leonardo Laconico through a telephone extension in Laconico's office at Laconico's request. Pintor charged both Gaanan and Laconico with violating the Anti-Wiretapping Act. The court found that an extension telephone is a common device and not covered under the Act as it was not deliberately installed to intercept communications. Simply listening through an extension telephone that happens to be present does not constitute wiretapping as defined in the Act. The court ruled that Gaanan was not guilty of violating the Anti-Wiretapping Act through his use of the extension telephone.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    of 1

    078. Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court (GR# L-69809, Oct.

    16, 1986)

    TOPIC: Wiretapping-phone extension

    FACTS:
    Complainant Atty. Tito Pintor and his client Manuel Montebon were in the living room of complainant’s residence discussing the
    terms for the withdrawal of the complaint for direct assault which they filed with the Office of the City Fiscal of Cebu against
    Leonardo Laconico.

    After they had decided on the proposed conditions, complainant made a telephone call to Laconico. That same morning, Laconico
    telephoned appellant, who is a lawyer, to come to his office and advise him on the settlement of the direct assault case because his
    regular lawyer, Atty. Leon Gonzaga, went on a business trip.

    When complainant called, 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. Twenty minutes later, complainant called again to ask
    Laconico if he was agreeable to the conditions. Laconico answered ‘Yes’. Complainant then told Laconico to wait for instructions on
    where to deliver the money.

    Appellant executed on the following day an affidavit stating 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
    complainant. Since appellant listened to the telephone conversation without complainant’s consent, complainant charged appellant
    and Laconico with violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Act.

    The lower court found both Gaanan and Laconico guilty of violating Section 1 of Republic Act No. 4200, which prompted petitioner
    to appeal. The IAC affirmed with modification hence the present petition for certiorari.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not an extension telephone is covered by the term “device or arrangement” under Rep. Act No. 4200.

    RULING:
    No. 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. The telephone
    extension in this case was not installed for that purpose. It just happened to be there for ordinary office use.

    An extension telephone is an instrument which is very common especially now when the extended unit does not have to be
    connected by wire to the main telephone but can be moved from place ' to place within a radius of a kilometer or more. A person
    should safely presume that the 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.

    The mere act of listening, in order to be punishable must strictly be with the use of the enumerated devices in RA No. 4200 or others
    of similar nature. We are of the view that an extension telephone is not among such devices or arrangements.

    You might also like