Overhearing through Telephone Extension is not Wiretapping | Gaanan vs. IAC Digest

In 1975, the complainant and his lawyer called defendant Laconico and discussed the withdrawal of the complaint they filed against Laconico. Defendant Laconico requested Atty Gaanan to secretly listen to the phone conversation through a telephone extension so Atty Gaanan could hear about the conditions for withdrawing the complaint.

• RTC: Atty Gaanan and defendant Laconico are guilty of violating RA 4200. Sentenced each of them to 1 year imprisonment.
• IAC: Affirmed RTC
  • Reason: The communication between the complainant and accused is private, hence covered by RA 4200;
  • Atty Gaanan overheard the complainant without the consent of the complainant;
  • Extension line is covered by “device” under RA 4200

Will the use of telephone extension to overhear a conversation violate RA 4200? No. 

• No physical interruption. There must be either a physical interruption through a wiretap or a deliberate device installation or arrangement to overhear spoken words. The use of phone extensions cannot be “tapping.”
• Extension line is an ordinary common device. The use of telephone extension happens to be an ordinary use. These are used by secretaries to record the meetings of their bosses.
• No difference if there is no extension line. An extension line is not different from another person holding out his phone for another to listen.
• Extensions are not of a similar nature as dictaphones. The enumeration, which lists dictaphone, tape-recorder, and walkie-talkie, should be used to comprehend instruments of the same nature which use tapping the main line of a telephone outside of their common usage or experience. A party who calls another should presume that the person at the other end of the line has an extension phone.
• Pro Reo. Penal statutes must be construed in favor of the accused.

Notes by Former DICT Sec. Salalima, in his book “CyberRights” From a technical viewpoint, the ruling in this case is erroneous because the law prohibits overhearing without the overheard party’s consent.Consent of all parties is necessary. (famous dissent of Brandeis in Olmstead vs. US)My note:  The substance of the law is the unauthorized overhearing and not the medium or the device.Doctrine of reasonable expectation of privacy was essentially violated here.Violated informational privacy which is the right not to disclose personal matters.For wire tapping to be legal, judicial warrant is needed.