Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    Case Digest 10

    Uploaded by

    Mae Vincent

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest 10

    Uploaded by

    Mae Vincent
    9 views3 pages

    Original Title

    CASE DIGEST 10

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    9 views3 pages

    Case Digest 10

    Uploaded by

    Mae Vincent

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    D.

    PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS

    79. Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court


    FACTS:
    Atty. Tito Pintor and his client Manuel Montebon were discussing the terms for the
    withdrawal of the complaint for direct assault filed with the Office of the City Fiscal of
    Cebu against Leonardo Laconico after demanding P 8,000.00 from him. This demand
    was heard by Atty. Gaanan through a telephone extension as requested by Laconico so
    as to personally hear the proposed conditions for the settlement. Atty. Pintor was
    subsequently arrested in an entrapment operation upon receipt of the money. since
    Atty. Gaanan listened to the telephone conversation without complainant's consent,
    complainant charged Gaanan and Laconico with violation of the Anti- Wiretapping Act
    (RA 4200).

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not an extension telephone is among the prohibited devices in Sec. 1 of
    RA 4200 such that its use to overheard a private conversation would constitute an
    unlawful interception of communication between two parties using a telephone line.

    HELD:
    No. An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone
    or dictagraph, or other devvices enumerated in Sec. 1 of the law as the use thereof
    cannot be considered as "tapping" the wire or cable of a telephone line. this section
    refers to instruments whose installation or presence cannot be presumed by the party or
    parties being overheard because, by their very nature, they are of common usage and
    their purpose is precisely for tapping, intercepting, or recording a telephone
    conversation. The telephone extension in this case was not installed for that purpose. It
    just happened to be there for ordinary office use.
    80. In Re: Wenceslao Laureta (1987)

    Facts:
    Eva Maravilla-Ilustre wrote a letter to the Justices of the First Division of the
    Supreme Court alleging that the dismissal of her case via a minute resolution was
    promulgated unjustly and in violation of the legal and judicial ethics. In her letter, she
    threatened that she will hold a press conference regarding the issue and requested
    that the judges disclose the extent of their paricipation in the promulgation of the
    minute resolution. She also claims that Justice Yap of the first division was previously
    the law partner of Atty. Ordonez, then counsel of the other party, and now the Solicitor
    General.

    Issue: Is there a violation on the privacy of communication

    Ruling:
    Respondents' reliance on the "privacy of communication" is misplaced. Letters
    addressed to individual Justices, in connection with the performance of their judicial
    functions become part of the judicial record and are a matter of concern for the entire
    Court. The contumacious character of those letters constrained the First Division to
    refer the same to the Court en banc, en consulta and so that the Court en banc could
    pass upon the judicial acts of the Division.
    81. Ramirez v. CA, Sept. 28, 1995

    Facts:
    Petitioner Ramirez filed an action for civil damages against Private Respondent
    Garcia alleging that the later vexed, humiliated her and insulted her. In support to her
    claim, petitioner produced a verbatim transcript via tape recorder which recorded their
    conversation. As a result of petitioners recording, Private Respondent filed a criminal
    case against petitioner for the violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Law (R.A. 4200).
    Petitioner filed a motion to quash contending that the violation punished under R.A.
    4200 refers to the tapping of a communication. Trial Court convicted petitioner, and it
    was affirmed by CA.

    Issue: Whether petitioner is criminally liable under R.A. 4200

    Held:
    Yes, legislative intent is determined principally from the language of the statute.
    Sec. 1 provides that “It shall be unlawful for any person not being authorized by all the
    parties to secretly record communication by tape record. The law makes no distinction
    to who among the parties should be penalized. The statute intends to penalize “any”
    person (any being the qualifier).

    You might also like