Ganaan v IAC (October 16, 1986)

Topic: RA 4200 Anti Wiretapping Act

Facts:
This involves a direct assault committed Leonardo Laconico against Atty. Tito Pinto.
To avoid filing of a complaint, the former wanted a negotiation through phone. Atty.
Pinto called up Laconico, without knowledge that Atty. Edgardo Ganaan was
overhearing their conversation via extension phone. Atty. Pinto wanted Laconico to
pay him a sum of money. Atty. Pinto was arrested for this because Atty. Ganaan
executed an affidavit pursuant to the conversation. Atty. Pinto filed a case against
Ganaan for violation of RA 4200.
Issue:
whether or not the person called over the telephone and his lawyer listening to the
conversation on an extension line should both face prison sentences simply because
the extension was used to enable them to both listen to an alleged attempt at
extortion
Held:
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.
Hence, the phrase "device or arrangement" in Section 1 of RA No. 4200, although
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.
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.

In the case of Rathburn v United States, the Court ruled that the conduct of the
party would differ in no way if instead of repeating the message he held out his
hand-set so that another could hear out of it and that there is no distinction
between that sort of action and permitting an outsider to use an extension
telephone for the same purpose.

Ramirez v CA (September 28, 1995)

Topic: RA 4200 Anti Wiretapping Act
Facts:
Civil case was filed by Socorro Ramirez against Ester Garcia because of humiliation,
insults, and vexation. An an evidence to establish his claim, a tape recording of their
confrontation where the latter uttered humiliating and insulting words against the
form was offered. Hence, Garcia filed a case against Ramirez for violation of RA
4200.
Issue:
(1) Whether or not a recording of a conversation by a person privy thereto,
violates RA 4200
(2) Whether or not a conversation is within the contemplation of RA 4200
Held:
Section 1 of RA 4200 clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any person, not
authorized by all the parties to any private communication to secretly record such
communication by means of a tape recorder. The law makes no distinction as to
whether the party sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a party other
than or different from those involved in the private communication. The statute's
intent to penalize all persons unauthorized to make such recording is underscored
by the use of the qualifier "any".
The word communicate comes from the latin word communicare, meaning "to share
or to impart." In its ordinary signification, communication connotes the act of
sharing or imparting signification, communication connotes the act of sharing or
imparting, as in a conversation, or signifies the "process by which meanings or
thoughts are shared between individuals through a common system of symbols (as
language signs or gestures)" These definitions are broad enough to include verbal
or non-verbal, written or expressive communications of "meanings or thoughts"
which are likely to include the emotionally-charged exchange, on February 22, 1988,
between petitioner and private respondent, in the privacy of the latter's office.

Ampatuan Jr v Secretary of Justice De Lima (April 3, 2013)

Topic: RA 6981 Witness Protection Act
Facts:
This involves the infamous Maguindanao massacre. By reason of the massacre, a
panel of prosecutors investigated the matter. It resolved to file several Information
for multiple murder against 196 individuals including the petitioner.. The resolution
is based on the affidavit of Kenny Dalandag who confessed to the crime charged in
the information. He was admitted into the Witness Protection Program (RA 6981).
Petitioner wrote to the DOJ requesting inclusion of Dalandag in the Information for
he has confessed to the crime charged. This was, however, denied by the DOJ.
Hence, petitioner filed a case for mandamus against DOJ.
Issue:
whether respondents may be compelled by writ of mandamus to charge Dalandag
as an accused for multiple murder in relation to the Maguindanao massacre despite
his admission to the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ
Held:

Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6981 and Rule 119, save for the circumstance
covered by paragraph (a) of the former, the requisites under both rules are
essentially the same. Also worth noting is that an accused discharged from an
information by the trial court pursuant to Section 17 of Rule 119 may also be
admitted to the Witness Protection Program of the DOJ provided he complies
with the requirements of Republic Act No. 6981.

A participant in the commission of the crime, to be discharged to become a

state witness pursuant to Rule 119, must be one charged as an accused in
the criminal case. The discharge operates as an acquittal of the discharged
accused and shall be a bar to his future prosecution for the same offense,
unless he fails or refuses to testify against his co-accused in accordance with
his sworn statement constituting the basis for his discharge. The discharge is
expressly left to the sound discretion of the trial court, which has the
exclusive responsibility to see to it that the conditions prescribed by the rules
for that purpose exist. While it is true that, as a general rule, the discharge or
exclusion of a co-accused from the information in order that he may be
utilized as a Prosecution witness rests upon the sound discretion of the trial
court, such discretion is not absolute and may not be exercised arbitrarily, but
with due regard to the proper administration of justice.

On the other hand, there is no requirement under Republic Act No. 6981 for
the Prosecution to first charge a person in court as one of the accused in
order for him to qualify for admission into the Witness Protection Program.
The admission as a state witness under Republic Act No. 6981 also operates
as an acquittal, and said witness cannot subsequently be included in the
criminal information except when he fails or refuses to testify. The immunity
for the state witness is granted by the DOJ, not by the trial court. Should such

witness be meanwhile charged in court as an accused, the public prosecutor,

upon presentation to him of the certification of admission into the Witness
Protection Program, shall petition the trial court for the discharge of the
witness. The Court shall then order the discharge and exclusion of said
accused from the information.