No. L-69809. October 16,1986. Edgardo A. Gaanan, Petitioner, vs. Intermediate Appellate Court and People OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents
No. L-69809. October 16,1986. Edgardo A. Gaanan, Petitioner, vs. Intermediate Appellate Court and People OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents
No. L-69809. October 16,1986. Edgardo A. Gaanan, Petitioner, vs. Intermediate Appellate Court and People OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents
*
No. L-69809. October 16,1986.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
113
VOL. 145, OCTOBER 16, 1986 113
114
115
116
117
ner prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for any other
person or persons; or to communicate the contents thereof, either
verbally or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof,
whether complete or partial, to any other person: Provided, that
the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any
civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in
Section 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition.''
120
121
In the same case, the Court further 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.
Furthermore, it is a general rule that penal statutes
must be construed strictly in favor of the accused. Thus, in
case of doubt as in the case at bar, on whether or not an
extension telephone is included in the phrase “device or
arrangement”, the penal statute must be constraed as not
including an extension telephone. In the case of People v.
Purisima, 86 SCRA 542, 562, we explained the rationale
behind the rule:
123
——o0o——