Bigamy and Crimes Against Honor

8/17/2019 Bigamy and Crimes Against Honor

1/150

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-10016. February 28, 1957.]

TE !E"!LE "F TE !#L#!!#NE$, Plaintiff-Appellee, %. !R"CE$" $. ARAG"N, Defendant- Appellant .

$o&'(')or Ge*era& A+bro'o !a'&&a a* $o&'(')or Ao&o Br'&&a*)e or Appellee.

!ro/ero . a*ue&, Fer*a*o o*(aa a* A*)o*'o Aba Tor*', or Defendant-Appellant .

$LLAB3$

1. MARRIAGE LAW NULL AND VOID MARRIAGES; JUDICIAL DECREE TO ESTABLISH INVALIDITY, NOT

NECESSARY. — A subseque! "#$$%#&e '(!$#'!e) b* #* +e$s( )u$%& !e -%e!%"e ( %s %$s! s+(use %s%--e- #) /(%) $(" %!s +e$($"#'e, #) ( 0u)%'%#- )e'$ee %s e'ess#$* !( es!#b-%s %!s %/#-%)%!* #s )%s

!%&u%se) $(" "e$e #u#b-e "#$$%#&e. 2e(+-e /. Me)(3#, L45677, Se+!e"be$ 86, 195:.

4 E C # $ # " N

LABRA4"R, J.

A++e#- $(" # 0u)&"e! ( !e C(u$! ( '#$(b-es.'(".+

?O Se+!e"be$ 86, 1985, !e #''use), u)e$ !e #"e ( 2$('es( R(s%"#, '(!$#'!e) "#$$%#&e =%! #'e$!#% M#$%# G($$e# % !e 2%-%++%e I)e+e)e! Cu$' % Cebu E@%b%!s ?1? #) ?14A. W%-e %s"#$$%#&e =%! M#$%# G($$e# =#s subs%s!%&, !e #''use), u)e$ !e #"e ( 2$('es( A$#&(, '(!$#'!e) #

'#(%'#- "#$$%#&e =%! M#$%#


2/150

%s!#'e ( !e -#!!e$. Au!($%!%es &%/e ($ %s $u-%& #$e 5 %#)#, 5! e)%!%(, 51; 5 A"e$%'#Ju$%s+$u)e'e, M#$$%#&e, Se'. :, +. 818; B%'($) /s, B%'($), 7: N.H. :, A. 579.

A++e--#! % !%s '(u$! $e-%es ( !e '#se ( 2e(+-e /. Me)(3#, 95 2%-., 6:5; 5 O. G#3., F1 :77. I

!%s '#se !e "#0($%!* ( !%s C(u$! )e'-#$e)> 0&'>'#$(b-es.'(".+

?Te s!#!u!($* +$(/%s%( se'!%( 89 ( !e M#$$%#&e L#= ( A'! 1 +-#%-* "#es # subseque! "#$$%#&e

'(!$#'!e) b* #* +e$s( )u$%& !e -%e!%"e ( %s %$s! s+(use %--e- #) /(%) $(" %!s +e$($"#'e, #) ( 0u)%'%#- )e'$ee %s e'ess#$* !( es!#b-%s %!s /#-%)%!*, #s )%s!%&u%se) $(" "e$e #u#b-e "#$$%#&es. Te$e %se$e ( +$e!ese !#! #++e--#!s se'() "#$$%#&e =%! O- Le"# =#s '(!$#'!e) % !e be-%e !#! !e %$s!s+(use, J(/%!# )e As%s, #) bee #bse! ($ se/e '(se'u!%/e *e#$s ($ &ee$#--* '(s%)e$e) #s )e#), s( #s!( $e)e$ s#%) "#$$%#&e /#-%) u!%- )e'-#$e) u-- #) /(%) b* # subseque! '(u$!.? '$#-#=/%$!u#1#=-%b$#$*

We #$e #=#$e ( !e /e$* =e%&!* $e#s(s e@+$esse) b* Jus!%'e A-e@ Re*es % %s )%sse! % !e '#se #b(/e4qu(!e). Bu! !ese =e%&!* $e#s(s (!=%!s!#)%&, !e /e$* u)#"e!#- +$%'%+-e ( s!$%'! '(s!$u'!%( (+e#- -#=s % #/($ ( !e #''use), =%' +$%'%+-e =e "#* (! %&($e, see"s !( 0us!%* (u$ s!#) % !e

#b(/e4'%!e) '#se ( 2e(+-e /. Me)(3#. Ou$ Re/%se) 2e#- C()e %s ( $e'e! e#'!"e! #) #) !e $u-eeu'%#!e) % S+#% #) % A"e$%'# $equ%$%& 0u)%'%#- )e'-#$#!%( ( u--%!* ( #b %%!%( /(%) "#$$%#&es bee=%!% !e '(!e"+-#!%( ( !e -e&%s-#!u$e, # e@+$ess +$(/%s%( !( !#! ee'! =(u-) ($ s(u-) #/e bee%se$!e) % !e -#=. I %!s #bse'e, =e #$e b(u) b* s#%) $u-e ( s!$%'! %!e$+$e!#!%( #-$e#)* #)/e$!e) !(.

I! %s !( be (!e) !#! !e #'!%( =#s %s!%!u!e) u+( '("+-#%! ( !e se'() =%e, =(se "#$$%#&e =%! !e

#++e--#! =#s (! $ee=e) #!e$ !e )e#! ( !e %$s! =%e #) be($e !e !%$) "#$$%#&e =#s e!e$e) %!(.He'e, !e -#s! "#$$%#&e =#s # /#-%) (e #) #++e--#!s +$(se'u!%( ($ '(!$#'!%& !%s "#$$%#&e '# (!

+$(s+e$.


3/150

Wiegel vs. Sempio-Dy

143 SCRA 449

FACTS:

Karl Wiegel was married to Lilia Wiegel on July 1978. Lilia was married with a

certain Eduardo Maxion in 1972. Karl then led a !etition in the Ju"enile and

#omestic $elations %ourt &or the declaration o& nullity o& his marriage with Lilia

on the ground o& latter's &ormer marriage. (a"ing )een allegedly &orce to enter

into a marital union* she contents that the rst marriage is null and "oid. Lilia

li+ewise alleged that Karl was married to another woman )e&ore their marriage.

ISSUE: Whether Karl's marriage with Lilia is "oid.

HELD:

,t was not necessary &or Lilia to !ro"e that her rst marriage was "itiated with

&orce )ecause it will not )e "oid )ut merely "oida)le. -uch marriage is "alid

until annulled. -ince no annulment has yet )een made* it is clear that when she

married Karl* she is still "alidly married to her rst hus)and. %onseuently* her

marriage to Karl is "oid. Li+ewise* there is no need o& introducing e"idence on

the !rior marriage o& Karl &or then such marriage though "oid still needs a

/udicial declaration )e&ore he can remarry. 0ccordingly* Karl and Lilia's marriage

are regarded "oid under the law.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-53703 August 19, 1986

LILIA OLIA !IEGEL, petitioner,

vs.

T"E "ONORA#LE ALICIA . SEMPIO-$I% &'s ()*s++g ug* o/ t* u2*+* ' $o4*st+

R*'t+os Cou)t o/ C'oo' C+t ' ARL "EIN !IEGEL, respondents.

Dapucanta, Dulay & Associates for petitioner.


4/150

Siguion Reyna, Montecillo and Ongsiako Law Office for private respondent.

PARAS, J.:

In an action !a"il# Case No. $%&' filed before the erst(hile )uvenile and Do"estic Relations Court

of Caloocan Cit#, herein respondent *arl +ein -ieel plaintiff therein' as/ed for the declaration of

Nullit# of his "arriae celebrated on )ul#, 012% at the +ol# Catholic 3postolic Christian Church

4ranch in Ma/ati, Metro Manila' (ith herein petitioner 5ilia Oliva -ieel 5ilia, for short, and

defendant therein' on the round of 5ilia6s previous e7istin "arriae to one Eduardo 3. Ma7ion, the

cere"on# havin been perfor"ed on )une 89, 0128 at our 5ad# of 5ourdes Church in :ueon Cit#.

5ilia, (hile ad"ittin the e7istence of said prior subsistin "arriae clai"ed that said "arriae (as

null and void, she and the first husband Eduardo 3. Ma7ion havin been alleedl# forced to enter

said "arital union. In the pre;trial that ensued, the issue areed upon b# both parties (as the status

of the first "arriae assu"in the presence of force e7erted aainst both parties'< (as said prior

"arriae void or (as it "erel# voidable= Contestin the validit# of the pre;trial order, 5ilia as/ed therespondent court for an opportunit# to present evidence;

0' that the first "arriae (as vitiated b# force e7ercised upon both her and the first husband> and

8' that the first husband (as at the ti"e of the "arriae in 0128 alread# "arried to someone else.

Respondent ?ude ruled aainst the presentation of evidence because the e7istence of force e7erted

on both parties of the first "arriae had alread# been areed upon. +ence, the present petition for

certiorari assailin the follo(in Orders of therespondent )ude;

0' the Order dated March 02, 01%@ in (hich the parties (ere co"pelled to sub"it the case forresolution based on Aareed facts>A and

8' the Order dated 3pril 0$, 01%@, den#in petitioner6s "otion to allo( her to present evidence in her

favor.

-e find the petition devoid of "erit.

Bhere is no need for petitioner to prove that her first "arriae (as vitiated b# force co""itted

aainst both parties because assu"in this to be so, the "arriae (ill not be void but "erel#

viodable 3rt. %9, Civil Code', and therefore valid until annulled. Since no annul"ent has #et been

"ade, it is clear that (hen she "arried respondent she (as still validl# "arried to her first husband,conseuentl#, her "arriae to respondent is VOID 3rt. %@, Civil Code'.

Bhere is li/e(ise no need of introducin evidence about the e7istin prior "arriae of her first

husband at the ti"e the# "arried each other, for then such a "arriae thouh void still needs

accordin to this Court a ?udicial declaration 1 of such fact and for all leal intents and purposes she

(ould still be rearded as a "arried (o"an at the ti"e she contracted her "arriae (ith respondent *arl


5/150

+ein -ieel'> accordinl#, the "arriae of petitioner and respondent (ould be rearded VOID under the

la(.

-+ERE!ORE, this petition is hereb# DISMISSED, for lac/ of "erit, and the Orders co"plained of

are hereb# 3!!IRMED. Costs aainst petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

eria !"#airman$, ernan Alampay and %utierre, 'r., ''., concur.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

!IRSB DIVISION

G.R. No. 109:5: u* 1:, 199:

OSE C. SERMONIA, petitioner,

vs.

"ON. COURT O; APPEALS, E*2*t $+2+s+o, "ON. $EOGRACIAS ;ELIAR$O, P)*s++g

ug*, R*g+o' T)+' Cou)t o/ P's+g, #). 151, ' OSEP" SINSA%, respondents.

(uas#a, Asperilla, Anc#eta, )e*a and +olasco for petitioner.

)onciano L. scuadra for private respondent.

#ELLOSILLO, J.:

4ia"# is an illeal "arriae co""itted b# contractin a second or subseuent "arriae before the

first "arriae has been leall# dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared

presu"ptivel# dead b# "eans of a ?ud"ent rendered in the proper proceedins. 1 4ia"# carries

(ith it the i"posable penalt# of prision mayor . 4ein punishable b# an afflictive penalt#, this cri"eprescribes in fifteen 09' #ears.


6/150

Bhe antecedents< In an infor"ation filed on 8 Ma# 0118, petitioner )ose C. Ser"onia (as chared

(ith bia"# before the Reional Brial Court of Pasi, 4r. 090, for contractin "arriae (ith Ma.

5ourdes nson on 09 !ebruar# 0129 (hile his prior "arriae to Virinia C. Nievera re"ained valid

and subsistin. 5

Petitioner "oved to uash the infor"ation on the round that his cri"inal liabilit# for bia"# hasbeen e7tinuished b# prescription.

In the order of 0 October 0118, respondent ?ude denied the "otion to uash. On 82 October 0118,

he li/e(ise denied the "otion to reconsider his order of denial.

Petitioner challened the above orders before the Court of 3ppeals throuh a petition

for certiorari and prohibition. In the assailed decision of

80 )anuar# 011&, his petition (as dis"issed for lac/ of "erit. 6

In this recourse, petitioner contends that his cri"inal liabilit# for bia"# has been obliterated b#

prescription. +e avers that since the second "arriae contract (as dul# reistered (ith the Office ofthe Civil Reistrar in 0129, 7such fact of reistration "a/es it a "atter of public record and thus

constitutes notice to the (hole (orld. Bhe offended part# therefore is considered to have had constructive

notice of the subseuent "arriae as of 0129> hence, prescription co""enced to run on the da# the

"arriae contract (as reistered. !or this reason, the correspondin infor"ation for bia"# should have

been filed on or before 011@ and not onl# in 0118.

Petitioner li/e(ise ta/es issue (ith the Aalleed conceal"ent of the bia"ous "arriaeA as declared

b# the appellate court, insistin that the second "arriae (as publicl# held at Our 5ad# of Nativit#

Church in Mari/ina on

09 !ebruar# 0129, and addin for ood "easure that fro" the "o"ent of reistration the "arriae

contract (as open to inspection b# an# interested person.

On the other hand, the prosecution "aintains that the prescriptive period does not bein fro" the

co""ission of the cri"e but fro" the ti"e of discover# b# co"plainant (hich (as in )ul# 0110.

-hile (e concede the point that the rule on constructive notice in civil cases "a# be applied in

cri"inal actions if the factual and leal circu"stances so (arrant, 8 (e aree (ith the vie( e7pounded

b# the Court of 3ppeals that it cannot appl# in the cri"e of bia"# not(ithstandin the possibilit# of its

bein "ore favorable to the accused. Bhe appellate court succinctl# e7plains F

3rued b# the petitioner is that the principle of constructive notice should be applied

in the case at bar, principall# citin in support of his stand, the cases of )eople

v . Reyes 029 SCR3 912'> and)eople v . Dinsay $@ SCR3 9@'.

Bhis Court is of the vie( that the principle of constructive notice should not be

applied in reard to the cri"e of bia"# as ?udicial notice "a# be ta/en of the fact

that a bia"ous "arriae is enerall# entered into b# the offender in secrec# fro"

the spouse of the previous subsistin "arriae. 3lso, a bia"ous "arriae is

enerall# entered into in a place (here the offender is not /no(n to be still a "arried

person, in order to conceal his leal i"pedi"ent to contract another "arriae.


7/150

In the case of real propert#, the reistration of an# transaction involvin an# riht or

interest therein is "ade in the Reister of Deeds of the place (here the said propert#

is located. Verification in the office of the Reister of Deeds concerned of the

transactions involvin the said propert# can easil# be "ade b# an# interested part#.

In the case of a bia"ous "arriae, verification b# the offended person or the

authorities of the sa"e (ould indeed be uite difficult as such a "arriae "a# beentered into in a place (here the offender is not /no(n to be still a "arried person.

4e it noted that in the cri"inal cases cited b# the petitioner (herein constructive

notice (as applied, involved therein (ere land or propert# disputes and certainl#,

"arriae is not propert#.

Bhe non;application to the cri"e of bia"# of the principle of constructive notice is

not contrar# to the (ell entrenched polic# that penal la(s should be construed

liberall# in favor of the accused. Bo co"pute the prescriptive period for the offense of

bia"# fro" reistration thereof (ould a"ount to al"ost absolvin the offenders

thereof for liabilit# therefor. -hile the celebration of the bia"ous "arriae "a# besaid to be open and "ade of public record b# its reistration, the offender ho(ever is

not truthful as he conceals fro" the officiatin authorit# and those concerned the

e7istence of his previous subsistin "arriae. +e does not reveal to the" that he is

still a "arried person. +e li/e(ise conceals fro" his leiti"ate spouse his bia"ous

"arriae. 3nd for these, he contracts the bia"ous "arriae in a place (here he is

not /no(n to be still a "arried person. 3nd such a place "a# be an#(here, under

(hich circu"stance, the discover# of the bia"ous "arriae is rendered uite

difficult and (ould ta/e ti"e. It is therefore reasonable that the prescriptive period for

the cri"e of bia"# should be counted onl# fro" the da# on (hich the said cri"e

(as discovered b# the offended part#, the authorities or their aenc# sic'.

Considerin such conceal"ent of the bia"ous "arriae b# the offender, if the

prescriptive period for the offense of bia"# (ere to be counted fro" the date of

reistration thereof, the prosecution of the violators of the said offense (ould al"ost

be i"possible. Bhe interpretation ured b# the petitioner (ould encourae fearless

violations of a social institution cherished and protected b# la(. 9

Bo this (e "a# also add that the rule on constructive notice (ill "a/e

de rigueur the routinar# inspection or verification of the "arriaes listed in the National Census

Office and in various local civil reistries all over the countr# to "a/e certain that no second or even

third "arriae has been contracted (ithout the /no(lede of the leiti"ate spouse. Bhis is too

for"idable a tas/ to even conte"plate.

More i"portantl#, (hile Sec. 98 of P.D. 0981 Propert# Reistration Decree' provides for constructive

notice to all persons of ever# conve#ance, "ortae, lease, lien, attach"ent, order, ?ud"ent,

instru"ent or entr# affectin reistered land filed or entered in the office of the Reister of Deeds for

the province or cit# (here the land to (hich it relates lies fro" the ti"e of such reisterin, filin or

enterin, there is no counterpart provision either in 3ct

No. &29& 3ct to Establish a Civil Reister' or in 3rts. $@2 to $0& of the Civil Code, (hich leads us to


8/150

the conclusion that there is no leal basis for appl#in the constructive notice rule to the docu"ents

reistered in the Civil Reister.

!inall#, petitioner (ould (ant us to believe that there (as no conceal"ent at all because his

"arriae contract (ith Ms. nson (as recorded in the Civil Reistr# (hich is open to all and sundr#

for inspection. -e cannot o alon (ith his aru"ent because (h# did he indicate in the "arriaecontract that he (as AsinleA thus obviousl# hidin his true status as a "arried "an= Or for that

"atter, (h# did he not si"pl# tell his first (ife about the subseuent "arriae in Mari/ina so that

ever#thin (ould be out in the open. Bhe ans(er is obvious< +e /ne( that no priest or "inister

(ould /no(inl# perfor" or authorie a bia"ous "arriae as this (ould sub?ect hi" to punish"ent

under the Marriae 5a(. 10 Obviousl#, petitioner had no intention of revealin his duplicit# to his first

spouse and a"bled instead on the probabilit# that she or an# third part# (ould ever o to the local civil

reistrar to inuire. In the "eanti"e, throuh the si"ple e7pedience of havin the second "arriae

recorded in the local civil reistr#, he has set into "otion the runnin of the fifteen;#ear prescriptive period

aainst the un(ar# and the unsuspectin victi" of his philanderin.

-ere (e to put our i"pri"atur to the theor# advanced b# petitioner, in all li/elihood (e (ould be

pla#in riht into the hands of philanderers. !or (e (ould be euatin the contract of "arriae (ith

ordinar# deeds of conve#ance and other si"ilar docu"ents (ithout due reard for the stabilit# of

"arriae as an inviolable social institution, the preservation of (hich is a pri"ar# concern of our

societ#.

-+ERE!ORE, findin no reversible error in the uestioned decision of the Court of 3ppeals, the

sa"e is 3!!IRMED.

SO ORDERED.

"ru, Davide, 'r., and (uiason, ''., concur.

-apunan, '., took no part.

erre "s erreTerre vs. Terre211 SCRA 6

FACTS:

#orothy erre was then married to a certain Merlito ercenillo* her rst cousin.0tty. Jordan erre success&ully con"inced #orothy that her marriage was "oid a)initio &or the reason o& !u)lic !olicy and that they are &ree to contract marriage. hey got married in 1977 where he wrote single under #orothy's status. 0&tergetting #orothy !regnant* 0tty. erre a)andoned them and su)seuentlycontracted another marriage to (elina Malicdem in 1983. 0tty. erre wascharged with a)andonment o& minor and )igamy.


9/150

ISSUE: Whether or not 0tty. erre's marriage with #orothy is null and "oid.

HELD:

#orothy's rst marriage is indeed "oid a) initio considering that Merlito is herrst cousin there)y against !u)lic !olicy. (owe"er* she did not le anydeclaration &or the nullity o& their marriage )e&ore she contracted her marriagewith 0tty. erre thus* her second marriage is "oid. 0rticle 45 states that thea)solute nullity o& a &ormer marriage may )e in"o+ed &or the !ur!oses o&remarriage on the )asis solely o& a nal /udgment declaring such !re"iousmarriage "oid.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN 43NC

A.M. No. that he subseuentl# learned that Doroth# (as "arried to a certain

Merlito 3. 4ercenilla so"eti"e in 01%> that (hen he confronted Doroth# about her prior "arriae, Doroth# drove hi"

out of their con?ual residence> that Doroth# had "oc/inl# told hi" of her private "eetins (ith Merlito 3. 4ercenilla

and that the child she (as then carr#in i.e., )ason Berre' (as the son of 4ercenilla> that believin in ood faith that


10/150

his "arriae to co"plainant (as null and void a initio, he contracted "arriae (ith +elina Malicde" at Dasol,

Panasinan. :

In her Repl#, co"plainant Doroth# denied that )ason Berre (as the child of Merlito 3. 4ercenilla and insisted that

)ason (as the child of respondent )ordan Berre, as evidenced b# )ason6s 4irth Certificate and ph#sical rese"blance

to respondent. Doroth# further e7plained that (hile she had iven birth to )ason Berre at the P3!H+ reistered as a

dependent of Merlito 4ercenilla, she had done so out of e7tre"e necessit# and to avoid ris/ of death or in?ur# to thefetus (hich happened to be in a difficult breech position. 3ccordin to Doroth#, she had then alread# been

abandoned b# respondent )ordan Berre, leavin her penniless and (ithout "eans to pa# for the "edical and hospital

bills arisin b# reason of her prenanc#.

Bhe Court denied respondent6s Motion to Set 3side or 5ift the Suspension Order and instead referred> b# a

Resolution dated )anuar# 01%, the co"plaint to the Office of the Solicitor Heneral for investiation, report and

reco""endation. 5

Bhen Solicitor Pio C. Huerrero (as appointed investiator b# the Office of the Solicitor Heneral. +e set the case for

hearin on 2 )ul# 01% (ith notice to both parties. On 2 )ul# 01%, co"plainant Doroth# appeared and presented her

evidence e/ parte, since respondent did not so appear. 6 Bhe Investiatin Solicitor scheduled and held another

hearin on 01 3uust 01%, (here he put clarificator# uestions to the co"plainant> respondent once

aain did not appear despite notice to do so. Co"plainant finall# offered her evidence and rested her

case. Bhe Solicitor set still another hearin for 8 October 01%, notif#in respondent to present his

evidence (ith a (arnin that should he fail once "ore to appear, the case (ould be dee"ed sub"itted for

resolution. Respondent did not appear on 8 October 01%. Bhe Investiatin Solicitor accordinl#

considered respondent to have (aived his riht to present evidence and declared the case sub"itted for

resolution. Bhe parties (ere iven ti"e to sub"it their respective "e"oranda. Co"plainant Doroth# did

so on % Dece"ber 01%. Respondent Berre did not file his "e"orandu".

On 8 !ebruar# 011@, the Office of the Solicitor Heneral sub"itted its AReport and Reco""endationA to this Court.

Bhe Report su""aried the testi"on# of the co"plainant in the follo(in "anner<

Co"plainant Doroth# Berre too/ the (itness stand and testified substantiall# as follo(s< she andrespondent "et for the first ti"e in 0121 as fourth #ear hih school class"ates in Cadi Cit# +ih

School tsn, )ul# 2, 01%, p. 1'> she (as then "arried to Merlito 4ercenilla, (hile respondent (as

sinle id .'> respondent (as a(are of her "arital status iid , p. 0$'> it (as then that respondent

started courtin her but nothin happened of the courtship iid , p. 0@'> the# co"plainant and

respondentJ "oved to Manila (ere the# respectivel# pursued their education, respondent as a la(

student at the 5#ceu" niversit# tsn, )ul# 2, 01%, p. 08, 09;0'> respondent continued courtin

her, this ti"e (ith "ore persistence iid , p. 00'> she decided nothin (ould co"e of it since she

(as "arried but he respondentJ e7plained to her that their "arriae (as void a initio since she

and her first husband (ere first cousins iid , p. 08'> convinced b# his e7planation and havin

secured favorable advice fro" her "other and

e7;in;la(s, she areed to "arr# hi" respondentJ iid , 08;0&, 0'> in their "arriae license, despite

her co"plainant6sJ ob?ection, he respondentJ (rote AsinleA as her status e7plainin that since her

"arriae (as void a initio, there (as no need to o to court to declare it as such iid , 0$;09'> the#(ere "arried before )ude Priscilla Mi?ares of the Cit# Court of Manila on )une 0$, 0122 E7hibit 3>

tsn, )ul# 2, 01%, pp. 0;02'> )ason Berre (as born of their union on )une 89, 01%0 E7hibit 4, tsn,

)ul# 2, 01%, p. 0%'> all throuh their "arried state up to the ti"e he respondentJ disappeared in

01%0, co"plainant supported respondent, in addition to the allo(ance the latter (as ettin fro"

his parents iid , pp. 01;8@'> she (as una(are of the reason for his disappearance until she found

out later that respondent "arried a certain Vil"a sicJ Malicde" E7hibit C, tsn, )ul# 2, 01%, pp.

80;88'> she then filed a case for abandon"ent of "inor (ith the Cit# !iscal of Pasa# Cit# iid , p.

8&' (hich (as subseuentl# filed before 4ranch II of the Cit# Court of Pasa# Cit# as Cri"inal Case


11/150

No. %0091 E7hibit D> tsn, )ul# 2, 01%, p. 8$'> she li/e(ise filed a case for bia"# aainst

respondent and +elina Malicde" (ith the office of the Provincial !iscal of Panasinan, (here

a prima facie case (as found to e7ist E7hibit E> tsn, )ul# 2, pp. 89;8'> additionall#, co"plainant

filed an ad"inistrative case aainst respondent (ith the Co""ission on 3udit (here he (as

e"plo#ed, (hich case ho(ever (as considered closed for bein "oot and acade"ic (hen

respondent (as considered auto"aticall# separated fro" the service for havin one on absence

(ithout official leave E7hibit !> tsn, )ul# 2, 01%, pp. 8%;81'.

7

Bhere is no dispute over the fact that co"plainant Doroth# Berre and respondent )ordan Berre contracted "arriae on

0$ )ul# 0122 before )ude Priscilla Mi?ares. Bhere is further no dispute over the fact that on & Ma# 01%0, respondent

)ordan Berre "arried +elina Malicde" in Dasol, Panasinan. -hen the second "arriae (as entered into,

respondent6s prior "arriae (ith co"plainant (as subsistin, no ?udicial action havin been initiated or an# ?udicial

declaration obtained as to the nullit# of such prior "arriae of respondent (ith co"plainant.

Respondent )ordan Berre souht to defend hi"self b# clai"in that he had believed in ood faith that his prior

"arriae (ith co"plainant Doroth# Berre (as null and void a initio and that no action for a ?udicial declaration of

nullit# (as necessar#.

Bhe Court considers this clai" on the part of respondent )ordan Berre as a spurious defense. In the first place,

respondent has not rebutted co"plainant6s evidence as to the basic facts (hich underscores the bad faith of

respondent Berre. In the second place, that pretended defense is the sa"e aru"ent b# (hich he had inveiled

co"plainant into believin that her prior "arriae to Merlito 3. 4ercenilla bein incestuous and void a initio Doroth#

and Merlito bein alleedl# first cousins to each other', she (as free to contract a second "arriae (ith the

respondent. Respondent )ordan Berre, bein a la(#er, /ne( or should have /no(n that such an aru"ent ran

counter to the prevailin case la( of this Court (hich holds that for purposes of deter"inin (hether a person is

leall# free to contract a second "arriae, a ?udicial declaration that the first "arriae (as null and void a initio is

essential. 8 Even if (e (ere to assu"e, arguendo "erel#, that )ordan Berre held that "ista/en belief in ood faith, the sa"e result (illfollo(. !or if (e are to hold )ordan Berre to his o(n aru"ent, his first "arriae to co"plainant Doroth# Berre "ust be dee"ed valid, (ith the

result that his second "arriae to +elina Malicde" "ust be rearded as bia"ous and cri"inal in character.

Bhat the "oral character of respondent )ordan Berre (as deepl# fla(ed is sho(n b# other circu"stances. 3s noted,

he convinced the co"plainant that her prior "arriae to 4ercenilla (as null and void a initio, that she (as still leall#

sinle and free to "arr# hi". -hen co"plainant and respondent had contracted their "arriae, respondent (ent

throuh la( school (hile bein supported b# co"plainant, (ith so"e assistance fro" respondent6s parents. 3fter

respondent had finished his la( course and otten co"plainant prenant, respondent abandoned the co"plainant

(ithout support and (ithout the (here(ithal for deliverin his o(n child safel# in a hospital.

Bhus, (e aree (ith the Solicitor Heneral that respondent )ordan Berre, b# his actions, Aelouentl# displa#ed, not

onl# his unfitness to re"ain as a "e"ber of the 4ar, but li/e(ise his inadeuac# to uphold the purpose and

responsibilit# of his enderA because "arriae is a basic social institution. 9

In )omperada v. 'oc#ico, 10 the Court, in re?ectin a petition to be allo(ed to ta/e the oath as a "e"ber of

the 4ar and to sin the Roll of 3ttorne#s, said throuh M"e. )ustice Melencio;+errera<

It is evident that respondent fails to "eet the standard of "oral fitness for "e"bership in the lealprofession. -hether the "arriae (as a ?o/e as respondent clai"s, or a tric/ pla#ed on her as

clai"ed b# co"plainant, it does not spea/ (ell of respondent6s "oral values. Respondent had

"ade a "oc/er# of "arriae, a basic social institution (hich public polic# cherishes and protects

3rticle 80, Civil Code'. 11

In 0olivar v. Simol , 1


12/150

he had finished his studies, /eepin his "arriae a secret (hile continuin to de"and "one# fro"

co"plainant. . . . .A Bhe Court held such acts Aindicative of a character not (orth# of a "e"ber of the

4ar.A 13

-e believe and so hold that the conduct of respondent )ordan Berre in inveilin co"plainant Doroth# Berre to

contract a second "arriae (ith hi"> in abandonin co"plainant Doroth# Berre after she had cared for hi" and

supported hi" throuh la( school, leavin her (ithout "eans for the safe deliver# of his o(n child> in contractin asecond "arriae (ith +elina Malicde" (hile his first "arriae (ith co"plainant Doroth# Berre (as subsistin,

constituted Arossl# i""oral conductA under Section 82 of Rule 0&% of the Rules of Court, affordin "ore than

sufficient basis for disbar"ent of respondent )ordan Berre. +e (as un(orth# of ad"ission to the 4ar in the first place.

Bhe Court (ill correct this error forth(ith.

-+ERE!ORE, the Court Resolved to DIS43R respondent )ordan Berre and to SBRI*E OB his na"e fro" the Roll

of 3ttorne#s. 3 cop# of this decision shall be spread on the personal record of respondent )ordan Berre in the 4ar

Confidant6s Office. 3 cop# of this resolution shall also be furnished to the Interated 4ar of the Philippines and shall

be circularied to all the courts of the land.

SO ORDERED.

+arvasa, ".'., %utierre, 'r., "ru, )aras, eliciano, )adilla, 0idin, %ri*o1A2uino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, 'r.,

Romero, +ocon and 0ellosillo, ''., concur.

A$MINISTRATIE CIRCULAR No. 08-


13/150

In Roerto 0rillante v. "ourt of Appeals and )eople of t#e )#ilippines,& the Court deleted the penalt#of i"prison"ent i"posed upon petitioner, a local politician, but "aintained the penalt# of fine of

P$,@@@@.@@, (ith subsidiar# i"prison"ent in case of insolvenc#, in each of the 9' cases of libel, onthe round that the intensel# feverish passions evo/ed durin the election period in 01%% "ust haveaitated petitioner into (ritin his open letter> and that inco"plete privileed co""unication shouldbe appreciated in favor of petitioner, especiall# considerin the (ide latitude traditionall# iven to

defa"ator# utterances aainst public officials in connection (ith or relevant to their perfor"ance of official duties or aainst public fiures in relation to "atters of public interest involvin the".

In 'ose Alemania 0uatis, 'r. v. )eople of t#e )#ilippines and Atty. 'ose )iera,$ the Court opted toi"pose upon petitioner, a la(#er, the penalt# of fine onl# for the cri"e of libel considerin that it (ashis first offense and he (as "otivated purel# b# his belief that he (as "erel# e7ercisin a civic or

"oral dut# to his client (hen (rote the defa"ator# letter to private co"plainant.

Bhe foreoin cases indicate an e"erent rule of preference for the i"position of fine onl# rather than i"prison"ent in libel cases under the circu"stances therein specified.

3ll courts and ?udes concerned should henceforth ta/e note of the foreoin rule of preference set

b# the Supre"e Court on the "atter of the i"position of penalties for the cri"e of libel bearin in"ind the follo(in principles<

0. Bhis 3d"inistrative Circular does not re"ove i"prison"ent as an alternative penalt#for the cri"e libel under 3rticle &99 of the Revised Penal Code>

8. Bhe )udes concerned "a#, in the e7ercise of sound discretion, and ta/in intoconsideration the peculiar circu"stances of each case, deter"ine (hether thei"position of a fine alone (ould best serve the interests of ?ustice or (hether

forbearin to i"pose i"prison"ent (ould depreciate the seriousness of the offense,(or/ violence on the social order, or other(ise be contrar# to the i"perative of

?ustice>

&. Should onl# a fine be i"posed and the accused be unable to pa# the fine, there is noleal obstacle to the application of the Revised )enal "ode provision on subsidiar#

i"prison"ent.

Bhe Court 3d"inistrator shall cause the i""ediate disse"ination of this 3d"inistrative Circular to allcourts and ?udes concerned.

Bhis 3d"inistrative Circular, approved b# the Supre"e Court n 0anc in 3.M. No. @%;0;02 SC at itssession of 88 )anuar# 8@@% shall ta/e effect upon its issuance.

Issued this 89th da# of )anuar# 8@@%.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-69809 Oto>*) 16, 1986


14/150

E$GAR$O A. GAANAN, petitioner,vs.INTERME$IATE APPELLATE COURT ' PEOPLE O; T"E P"ILIPPINES, respondents.

GUTIERRE, R., J.:

Bhis petition for certiorari as/s for an interpretation of Republic 3ct R3' No. $8@@, other(ise /no(nas the 3nti;-iretappin 3ct, on the issue of (hether or not an e7tension telephone is a"on theprohibited devices in Section 0 of the 3ct, such that its use to overhear a private conversation (ouldconstitute unla(ful interception of co""unications bet(een the t(o parties usin a telephone line.

Bhe facts presented b# the People and narrated in the respondent court6s decision are not disputedb# the petitioner.

In the "ornin of October 88, 0129, co"plainant 3tt#. Bito Pintor and his clientManuel Montebon (ere in the livin roo" of co"plainant6s residence discussin the

ter"s for the (ithdra(al of the co"plaint for direct assault (hich the# filed (ith theOffice of the Cit# !iscal of Cebu aainst 5eonardo 5aconico. 3fter the# had decidedon the proposed conditions, co"plainant "ade a telephone call to 5aconico tsn,

3uust 8, 01%0, pp. &;9'.

Bhat sa"e "ornin, 5aconico telephoned appellant, (ho is a la(#er, to co"e to hisoffice and advise hi" on the settle"ent of the direct assault case because his reular la(#er, 3tt#. 5eon Honaa, (ent on a business trip. 3ccordin to the reuest,appellant (ent to the office of 5aconico (here he (as briefed about the proble".E7hibit 6D6, tsn, 3pril 88, 01%8, pp. $;9'.

-hen co"plainant called up, 5aconico reuested appellant to secretl# listen to the

telephone conversation throuh a telephone e7tension so as to hear personall# theproposed conditions for the settle"ent. 3ppellant heard co"plainant enu"erate thefollo(in conditions for (ithdra(al of the co"plaint for direct assault.

a' the P9,@@@.@@ (as no loner acceptable, and that the fiure had been increasedto P%,@@@.@@. 3 brea/do(n of the P%,@@@.@@ had been "ade toether (ith otherde"ands, to (it< a' P9,@@@.@@ no loner for the teacher Manuel Montebon, but for

3tt#. Pintor hi"self in persuadin his client to (ithdra( the case for Direct 3ssaultaainst 3tt#. 5aconico before the Cebu Cit# !iscal6s Office>

b' Public apolo# to be "ade b# 3tt#. 5aconico before the students of Don 4oscoBechnical +ih School>

c' Pl,@@@.@@ to be iven to the Don 4osco !acult# club>

d' transfer of son of 3tt#. 5aconico to another school or another section of Don4osco Bechnical +ih School>

e' 3ffidavit of desistance b# 3tt#. 5aconico on the Maltreat"ent case earlier filedaainst Manuel Montebon at the Cebu Cit# !iscal6s Office, (hereas Montebon6s


15/150

affidavit of desistance on the Direct 3ssault Case aainst 3tt#. 5aconico to be filedlater>

f' 3llo( Manuel Montebon to continue teachin at the Don 4osco Bechnical School>

' Not to divule the truth about the settle"ent of the Direct 3ssault Case to the

"ass "edia>

h' P8,@@@.@@ attorne# s fees for 3tt#. Pintor. tsn, 3uust 8, 01%0, pp. $2;$%'.

B(ent# "inutes later, co"plainant called up aain to as/ 5aconico if he (asareeable to the conditions. 5aconico ans(ered 6Les6. Co"plainant then told5aconico to (ait for instructions on (here to deliver the "one#. tsn, March 0@, 01%&,pp. 8;08'.

Co"plainant called up aain and instructed 5aconico to ive the "one# to his (ife atthe office of the then Depart"ent of Public +ih(a#s. 5aconico (ho earlier alertedhis friend Colonel ulueta of the Cri"inal Investiation Service of the Philippine

Constabular#, insisted that co"plainant hi"self should receive the "one#. tsn,March 0@, 01%8, pp. 8;&&'. -hen he received the "one# at the Iloo Restaurant,co"plainant (as arrested b# aents of the Philippine Constabular#.

3ppellant e7ecuted on the follo(in da# an affidavit statin that he heardco"plainant de"and P%,@@@.@@ for the (ithdra(al of the case for direct assault.5aconico attached the affidavit of appellant to the co"plainant for robber#Ge7tortion(hich he filed aainst co"plainant. Since appellant listened to the telephoneconversation (ithout co"plainant6s consent, co"plainant chared appellant and5aconico (ith violation of the 3nti;-iretappin 3ct.

3fter trial on the "erits, the lo(er court, in a decision dated Nove"ber 88, 01%8, found both Haanan

and 5aconico uilt# of violatin Section 0 of Republic 3ct No. $8@@. Bhe t(o (ere each sentenced toone 0' #ear i"prison"ent (ith costs. Not satisfied (ith the decision, the petitioner appealed to theappellate court.

On 3uust 0, 01%$, the Inter"ediate 3ppellate Court affir"ed the decision of the trial court, holdinthat the co""unication bet(een the co"plainant and accused 5aconico (as private in nature and,therefore, covered b# Rep. 3ct No. $8@@> that the petitioner overheard such co""unication (ithoutthe /no(lede and consent of the co"plainant> and that the e7tension telephone (hich (as used b#the petitioner to overhear the telephone conversation bet(een co"plainant and 5aconico is coveredin the ter" Adevice6 as provided in Rep. 3ct No. $8@@.

In this petition for certiorari, the petitioner assails the decision of the appellate court and raises thefollo(in issues> a' (hether or not the telephone conversation bet(een the co"plainant andaccused 5aconico (as private in nature> b' (hether or not an e7tension telephone is covered b# theter" Adevice or arrane"entA under Rep. 3ct No. $8@@> c' (hether or not the petitioner hadauthorit# to listen or overhear said telephone conversation and d' (hether or not Rep. 3ct No. $8@@is a"biuous and, therefore, should be construed in favor of the petitioner.

Section 0 of Rep. 3ct No. $8@@ provides


16/150

Section 0. It shall be unla(ful for an# person, not bein authoried b# all the partiesto an# private co""unication or spo/en (ord, to tap an# (ire or cable or b# usinan# other device or arrane"ent, to secretl# overhear, intercept, or record suchco""unication or spo/en (ord b# usin a device co""onl# /no(n as a dictaphoneor dictaraph or detectaphone or (al/ie;tal/ie or tape;recorder, or ho(ever other(isedescribed<

It shall be unla(ful for an# person, be he a participant or not in the act or actspenalied in the ne7t preceedin sentence, to /no(inl# possess an# tape record,(ire record, disc record, or an# other such record, or copies thereof, of an#co""unication or spo/en (ord secured either before or after the effective date ofthis 3ct in the "anner prohibited b# this la(> or to repla# the sa"e for an# otherperson or persons> or to co""unicate the contents thereof, either verball# or in(ritin, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, (hether co"plete or partial, to an# otherperson< Provided, that the use of such record or an# copies thereof as evidence inan# civil, cri"inal investiation or trial of offenses "entioned in Section & hereof,shall not be covered b# this prohibition.

-e rule for the petitioner.

-e are confronted in this case (ith the interpretation of a penal statute and not a rule of evidence.Bhe issue is not the ad"issibilit# of evidence secured over an e7tension line of a telephone b# athird part#. Bhe issue is (hether or not the person called over the telephone and his la(#er listeninto the conversation on an e7tension line should both face prison sentences si"pl# because thee7tension (as used to enable the" to both listen to an alleed atte"pt at e7tortion.

Bhere is no uestion that the telephone conversation bet(een co"plainant 3tt#. Pintor and accused 3tt#. 5aconico (as AprivateA in the sense that the (ords uttered (ere "ade bet(een one person andanother as distinuished fro" (ords bet(een a spea/er and a public. It is also undisputed that onl#one of the parties ave the petitioner the authorit# to listen to and overhear the caller6s "essae (iththe use of an e7tension telephone line. Obviousl#, co"plainant Pintor, a "e"ber of the Philippine

bar, (ould not have discussed the alleed de"and for an P%,@@@.@@ consideration in order to havehis client (ithdra( a direct assault chare aainst 3tt#. 5aconico filed (ith the Cebu Cit# !iscal6sOffice if he /ne( that another la(#er (as also listenin. -e have to consider, ho(ever, thataffir"ance of the cri"inal conviction (ould, in effect, "ean that a caller b# "erel# usin a telephoneline can force the listener to secrec# no "atter ho( obscene, cri"inal, or anno#in the call "a# be. It(ould be the (ord of the caller aainst the listener6s.

4ecause of technical proble"s caused b# the sensitive nature of electronic euip"ent and the e7traheav# loads (hich telephone cables are "ade to carr# in certain areas, telephone users oftenencounter (hat are called Acrossed linesA. 3n un(ar# citien (ho happens to pic/ up his telephoneand (ho overhears the details of a cri"e "iht hesitate to infor" police authorities if he /no(s thathe could be accused under Rep. 3ct $8@@ of usin his o(n telephone to secretl# overhear the

private co""unications of the (ould be cri"inals. Surel# the la( (as never intended for such"ischievous results.

Bhe "ain issue in the resolution of this petition, ho(ever, revolves around the "eanin of the phraseAan# other device or arrane"ent.A Is an e7tension of a telephone unit such a device or arrane"entas (ould sub?ect the user to i"prison"ent ranin fro" si7 "onths to si7 #ears (ith the accessor#penalt# of perpetual absolute disualification for a public officer or deportation for an alien= Privatesecretaries (ith e7tension lines to their bosses6 telephones are so"eti"es as/ed to use ans(erinor recordin devices to record business conversations bet(een a boss and another business"an.


17/150

-ould transcribin a recorded "essae for the use of the boss be a proscribed offense= or for that"atter, (ould a Apart# lineA be a device or arrane"ent under the la(=

Bhe petitioner contends that telephones or e7tension telephones are not included in the enu"erationof Aco""onl# /no(nA listenin or recordin devices, nor do the# belon to the sa"e class ofenu"erated electronic devices conte"plated b# la(. +e "aintains that in 01$, (hen Senate 4ill

No. 1 later Rep. 3ct No. $8@@' (as bein considered in the Senate, telephones and e7tensiontelephones (ere alread# (idel# used instru"ents, probabl# the "ost popularl# /no(nco""unication device.

-hether or not listenin over a telephone part# line (ould be punishable (as discussed on the floorof the Senate. Let, (hen the bill (as finalied into a statute, no "ention (as "ade of telephones inthe enu"eration of devices Aco""onl# /no(n as a dictaphone or dictaraph, detectaphone or(al/ie tal/ie or tape recorder or ho(ever other(ise described.A Bhe o"ission (as not a "ereoversiht. Belephone part# lines (ere intentionall# deleted fro" the provisions of the 3ct.

Bhe respondent People arue that an e7tension telephone is e"braced and covered b# the ter"AdeviceA (ithin the conte7t of the afore"entioned la( because it is not a part or portion of a co"plete

set of a telephone apparatus. It is a separate device and distinct set of a "ovable apparatusconsistin of a (ire and a set of telephone receiver not for"in part of a "ain telephone set (hichcan be detached or re"oved and can be transferred a(a# fro" one place to another and to beplued or attached to a "ain telephone line to et the desired co""unication cornin fro" theother part# or end.

Bhe la( refers to a AtapA of a (ire or cable or the use of a Adevice or arrane"entA for the purpose of secretl# overhearin, interceptin, or recordin the co""unication. Bhere "ust be either a ph#sicalinterruption throuh a (iretap or the delierate installation of a device or arrane"ent in order tooverhear, intercept, or record the spo/en (ords.

3n e7tension telephone cannot be placed in the sa"e cateor# as a dictaphone, dictaraph or theother devices enu"erated in Section 0 of R3 No. $8@@ as the use thereof cannot be considered asAtappinA the (ire or cable of a telephone line. Bhe telephone e7tension in this case (as not installedfor that purpose. It ?ust happened to be there for ordinar# office use. It is a rule in statutor#construction that in order to deter"ine the true intent of the leislature, the particular clauses andphrases of the statute should not be ta/en as detached and isolated e7pressions, but the (hole andever# part thereof "ust be considered in fi7in the "eanin of an# of its parts. see Co""issioner of Custo"s v. Esso Estandard Eastern, Inc., SCR3 00&,08@'.

In the case of mpire 3nsurance "om any v. Rufino 1@ SCR3 $&2, $$&;$$$', (e ruled<

5i/e(ise, 3rticle 0&28 of the Civil Code stipulates that 6ho(ever eneral the ter"s ofa contract "a# be, the# shall not be understood to co"prehend thins that aredistinct and cases that are different fro" those upon (hich the parties intended to

aree.6 Si"ilarl#, 3rticle 0&2$ of the sa"e Code provides that 6the various stipulationsof a contract shall be interpreted toether, attributin to the doubtful ones that sense(hich "a# result fro" all of the" ta/en ?ointl#.

777 777 777

Conseuentl#, the phrase 6all liabilities or obliations of the decedent6 used inpararaph 9c' and 2d' should be then restricted onl# to those listed in the Inventor#and should not be construed as to co"prehend all other obliations of the decedent.


18/150

Bhe rule that 6particulariation follo(ed b# a eneral e7pression (ill ordinaril# berestricted to the for"er6 is based on the fact in hu"an e7perience that usuall# the"inds of parties are addressed speciall# to the particulariation, and that theeneralities, thouh broad enouh to co"prehend other fields if the# stood alone, areused in conte"plation of that upon (hich the "inds of the parties are centered.+off"an v. Eastern -isconsin R., etc., Co., 0&$ -is. @&, @2, 009 N- &%&, cited in

!rancisco, Revised Rules of Court Evidence', 012& ed, pp. 0%@;0%0'.

+ence, the phrase Adevice or arrane"entA in Section 0 of R3 No. $8@@, althouh not e7clusive tothat enu"erated therein, should be construed to co"prehend instru"ents of t#e same or similarnature, that is, instru"ents the use of (hich (ould be tanta"ount to tappin the "ain line of atelephone. It refers to instru"ents (hose installation or presence cannot be presu"ed b# the part#or parties bein overheard because, b# their ver# nature, the# are not of co""on usae and theirpurpose is precisel# for tappin, interceptin or recordin a telephone conversation.

3n e7tension telephone is an instru"ent (hich is ver# co""on especiall# no( (hen the e7tendedunit does not have to be connected b# (ire to the "ain telephone but can be "oved fro" place 6 toplace (ithin a radius of a /ilo"eter or "ore. 3 person should safel# presu"e that the part# he is

callin at the other end of the line probabl# has an e7tension telephone and he runs the ris/ of athird part# listenin as in the case of a part# line or a telep#one unit (hich shares its line (ithanother. 3s (as held in the case of Rat#un v. 4nited States &99, .S. 0@2, 8 5 Ed 8d 0&2;0&%'<

Co""on e7perience tells us that a call to a particular telephone nu"ber "a# causethe bell to rin in "ore than one ordinaril# used instru"ent. Each part# to atelephone conversation ta/es the ris/ that the other part# "a# have an e7tensiontelephone and "a# allo( another to overhear the conversation. -hen such ta/esplace there has been no violation of an# privac# of (hich the parties "a# co"plain.Conseuentl#, one ele"ent of @9, interception, has not occurred.

In the sa"e case, the Court further ruled that the conduct of the part# (ould differ in no (a# ifinstead of repeatin the "essae he held out his hand;set so that another could hear out of it and

that there is no distinction bet(een that sort of action and per"ittin an outsider to use an e7tensiontelephone for the sa"e purpose.

!urther"ore, it is a eneral rule that penal statutes "ust be construed strictl# in favor of theaccused. Bhus, in case of doubt as in the case at bar, on (hether or not an e7tension telephone isincluded in the phrase Adevice or arrane"entA, the penal statute "ust be construed as not includinan e7tension telephone. In the case of )eople v. )urisima, % SCR3 9$8, 98, (e e7plained therationale behind the rule<

3"erican ?urisprudence sets do(n the reason for this rule to be the tenderness of thela( of the rihts of individuals> the ob?ect is to establish a certain rule b# confor"it# to(hich "an/ind (ould be safe, and the discretion of the court li"ited. nited States

v. +arris, 022 S &@9, $$ 5 Ed 2%@, 8@ S Ct @1> 4raffith v. Virin Islands C3&' 8!8d $> Caudill v. State, 88$ Ind 9&0, 1 NE8d> )ennins v. Co""on(ealth, 0@1 V3%80,& SE 0@%@, all cited in 2& 3" )ur 8d $98'. Bhe purpose is not to enable a uilt#person to escape punish"ent throuh a technicalit# but to provide a precisedefinition of forbidden acts.A State v. aaro, 8@ 3 8d 2&2, uoted in Martin6s+andboo/ on Statutor# Construction, Rev. Ed. pp. 0%&;0%$'.

In the sa"e case of )urisima, (e also ruled that on the construction or interpretation of a leislative"easure, the pri"ar# rule is to search for and deter"ine the intent and spirit of the la(. 3 perusal of


19/150

the Senate Conressional Records (ill sho( that not onl# did our la("a/ers not conte"plate theinclusion of an e7tension telephone as a prohibited device or arrane"entA but of reateri"portance, the# (ere "ore concerned (ith penaliin the act of recordin than the act of "erel#listenin to a telephone conversation.

777 777 777

Senator Baada. 3nother possible ob?ection to that is entrap"ent(hich is certainl# ob?ectionable. It is "ade possible b# speciala"end"ent (hich Lour +onor "a# introduce.

Senator Dio/no.Lour +onor, I (ould feel that entrap"ent (ould beless possible (ith the a"end"ent than (ithout it, because (ith thea"end"ent the evidence of entrap"ent (ould onl# consist ofovern"ent testi"on# as aainst the testi"on# of the defendant.-ith this a"end"ent, the# (ould have the riht, and the overn"entofficials and the person in fact (ould have the riht to tape recordtheir conversation.

Senator Baada. In case of entrap"ent, it (ould be the overn"ent.

Senator Dio/no. In the sa"e (a#, under this provision, neither part#could record and, therefore, the court (ould be li"ited to sa#in<AO/a#, (ho is "ore credible, the police officers or the defendant=A Inthese cases, as e7perienced la(#ers, (e /no( that the Court o (iththe peace offices.

Conressional Record, Vol. 000, No. &&, p. 8%, March 08, 01$'.

777 777 777

Senator Dio/no. Bhe point I have in "ind is that under theseconditions, (ith an aent outside listenin in, he could falsif# thetesti"on# and there is no (a# of chec/in it. 4ut if #ou allo( hi" torecord or "a/e a recordin in an# for" of (hat is happenin, thenthe chances of falsif#in the evidence is not ver# "uch.

Senator Baada. Lour +onor, this bill is not intended to prevent thepresentation of false testi"on#. If (e could devise a (a# b# (hich (ecould prevent the presentation of false testi"on#, it (ould be(onderful. 4ut (hat this bill intends to prohibit is the use of taperecord and other electronic devices to intercept private conversations(hich later on (ill be used in court.

Conressional Record, Vol. III, No. &&, March 08, 01$, p. 81'.

It can be readil# seen that our la("a/ers intended to discourae, throuh punish"ent, persons suchas overn"ent authorities or representatives of oranied roups fro" installin devices in order toather evidence for use in court or to inti"idate, blac/"ail or ain so"e un(arranted advantaeover the telephone users. Conseuentl#, the "ere act of listenin, in order to be punishable "ust


20/150

strictl# be (ith the use of the enu"erated devices in R3 No. $8@@ or others of si"ilar nature. -e areof the vie( that an e7tension telephone is not a"on such devices or arrane"ents.

-+ERE!ORE, the petition is HR3NBED. Bhe decision of the then Inter"ediate 3ppellate Courtdated 3uust 0, 01%$ is 3NN55ED and SEB 3SIDE. Bhe petitioner is hereb# 3C:IBBED of thecri"e of violation of Rep. 3ct No. $8@@, other(ise /no(n as the 3nti;-iretappin 3ct.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 93833 | September 28, 1995 | J. Katipunan

Facts:

A civil case damages was filed by petitioner Socorro Ramirez in the Quezon City RTC alleging that

the private respondent, ster !arcia, in a confrontation in the latter"s office, allegedly ve#ed, insulted

and humiliated her in a $hostile and furious mood% and in a manner offensive to petitioner"s dignity

and personality,% contrary to morals, good customs and public policy&%

'n support of her claim, petitioner produced a verbatim transcript of the event and sought damages&The transcript on which the civil case was based was culled from a tape recording of the

confrontation made by petitioner&

As a result of petitioner"s recording of the event and alleging that the said act of secretly taping the

confrontation was illegal, private respondent filed a criminal case before the (asay RTC for violation

of Republic Act )*++, entitled $An Act to prohibit and penalize wire tapping and other related

violations of private communication, and other purposes&%

(etitioner filed a otion to Quash the 'nformation, which the RTC later on granted, on the ground

that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, particularly a violation of R&A& )*++&

The CA declared the RTC"s decision null and void and denied the petitioner"s R, hence the instant

petition&

Issue:

-./ the Anti0-iretapping Act applies in recordings by one of the parties in the conversation

e!":

#es. Section 1 of R&A& )*++ entitled, % An Act to (rohibit and (enalized -ire Tapping and 2ther

Related 3iolations of (rivate Communication and 2ther (urposes,% provides:

Sec& 1& 't shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private

communication or spo4en word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or

arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spo4en word by using

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/sep1995/gr_93833_1995.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/sep1995/gr_93833_1995.html


21/150

a device commonly 4nown as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or wal4ie0tal4ie or tape

recorder, or however otherwise described&

The aforestated provision clearly and une5uivocally ma4es 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 ma4es 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 ma4e such recording is underscored by

the use of the 5ualifier $any%& Conse5uently, as respondent Court of Appeals correctly concluded,

$even a 6person7 privy to a communication who records his private conversation with another

without the 4nowledge of the latter 6will7 5ualify as a violator% under this provision of R&A& )*++&

A perusal of the Senate Congressional Records, moreover, supports the respondent court"s

conclusion that in enacting R&A& )*++ our lawma4ers indeed contemplated to ma4e illegal,

unauthorized tape recording of private conversations or communications ta4en either by the parties

themselves or by third persons&

The nature of the conversations is immaterial to a violation of the statute& The substance of the same

need not be specifically alleged in the information& -hat R&A& )*++ penalizes are the acts of

secretly overhearing, intercepting or recording private communications by means of the devices

enumerated therein& The mere allegation that an individual made a secret recording of a private

communication by means of a tape recorder would suffice to constitute an offense under Section 1 of

R&A& )*++& As the Solicitor !eneral pointed out in his C2/T before the respondent court:

$/owhere 6in the said law7 is it re5uired that before one can be regarded as a violator, the nature of

the conversation, as well as its communication to a third person should be professed&%

(etitioner"s contention that the phrase $private communication% in Section 1 of R&A& )*++ does not

include $private conversations% narrows the ordinary meaning of the word $communication% to a

point of absurdity& The word communicate comes from the latin word communicare, meaning $to

share or to impart&% 'n 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 6as language signs or gestures7%

These definitions are broad enough to include verbal or non0verbal, written or e#pressive

communications of $meanings or thoughts% which are li4ely to include the emotionally0charged

e#change, on 8ebruary **, 19, between petitioner and private respondent, in the privacy of the

latter"s office& Any doubts about the legislative body"s meaning of the phrase $private

communication% are, furthermore, put to rest by the fact that the terms $conversation% and

$communication% were interchangeably used by Senator Ta;ada in his #planatory /ote to the


22/150

GANAAN V IAC

7 NOV

G.R. No. $%&98'9 | (ctober 1&, 198& | J. Gutierre) Jr.

Facts*

Complainant Atty& Tito (intor and his client anuel ontebon 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 2ffice of the City 8iscal of Cebu against =eonardo =aconico& After they had

decided on the proposed conditions, complainant made a telephone call to =aconico& That same

morning, =aconico 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& =eon !onzaga, went on a

business trip&

-hen complainant called, =aconico re5uested appellant to secretly listen to the telephone

conversation through a telephone e#tension so as to hear personally the proposed conditions for the

settlement& Twenty minutes later, complainant called again to as4 =aconico if he was agreeable to the

conditions& =aconico answered >?es"& Complainant then told =aconico to wait for instructions on

where to deliver the money&

Complainant called again and instructed =aconico to give the money to his wife at the office of the

then @epartment of (ublic ighways& =aconico who earlier alerted his friend Colonel Bulueta of the

Criminal 'nvestigation Service of the (hilippine Constabulary, insisted that complainant himself

should receive the money& -hen he received the money at the 'gloo Restaurant, complainant was

arrested by agents of the (hilippine Constabulary&

Appellant e#ecuted on the following day an affidavit stating that he heard complainant demand

(,+++&++ for the withdrawal of the case for direct assault& =aconico attached the affidavit of

appellant to the complainant for robbery.e#tortion which he filed against complainant& Since

appellant listened to the telephone conversation without complainant"s consent, complainant

charged appellant and =aconico with violation of the Anti0-iretapping Act&

The lower court found both !aanan and =aconico guilty of violating Section 1 of Republic Act /o&

)*++, which prompted petitioner to appeal& The 'AC affirmed with modification hence the present

petition for certiorari&

Issue*

https://lazylegalboneswilldigest.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/ganaan-v-iac/https://lazylegalboneswilldigest.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/ganaan-v-iac/https://lazylegalboneswilldigest.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/ganaan-v-iac/https://lazylegalboneswilldigest.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/ganaan-v-iac/http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1986/oct1986/gr_69809_1986.htmlhttps://lazylegalboneswilldigest.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/ganaan-v-iac/https://lazylegalboneswilldigest.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/ganaan-v-iac/http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1986/oct1986/gr_69809_1986.html


23/150

-./ an e#tension telephone is covered by the term $device or arrangement% under Rep& Act /o&

)*++

e!"*

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 spo4en words&

An e#tension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone, dictagraph or the

other devices enumerated in Section 1 of RA /o& )*++ as the use thereof cannot be considered as

$tapping% the wire or cable of a telephone line& The telephone e#tension in this case was not installed

for that purpose& 't ust happened to be there for ordinary office use&


Manila

!IRSB DIVISION

G.R. No. 93833 S*(t*4>*)


24/150

Defendant Ester S. Harcia ESH' F 3no ba an nan#ari sa 6#o,na/ali"ot /a na /un paano /a napunta rito, por/e "e"ber /a na,"asu"bon /a /un ano an aa(in /o sa 6#o.

C+C+I F *asi, na/a dut# a/o noon.

ESH F Bapos ini(an no. Sic '

C+C+I F +indi "6a", pero ilan beses na nila a/on binali/an,sabin anoon F

ESH F Ito and sic ' "asasabi /o sa 6#o, a#a( /un sic ' "a e7plain/a, /asi hanan 0@


25/150

ESH F +u(a na, hindi a/o "a;papa;e7plain sa 6#o, "a/aalala /a/un paano /a pu"a;rito. A)utang1inaA sasabi;sabihin "o /a"a;ana/ n nana# at tata# "o an "a "aulan /o.

ESH F -ala na a/on pa/iala", dahil nandito /a sa loob, nasalabas /a pu(ede /a n hindi pu"aso/, o/e# #an nasaloob /a u"alis

/a doon.

C+C+I F *asi M6a", binbali/an a/o n "a taa nion.

ESH F Nandi#an na rin a/o, pero hu(a "on /ali"utan na hindi /a"a/a/apaso/ /un hindi a/o. *un hindi "o /ini/ilala #an o/e# lansa a/in, dahil tapos /a na.

C+C+I F Ina;ano /o "6a" na utan na loob.

ESH F +u(a na lan, hindi "o utan na loob, /asi /un baa sano, nilapastanan "o a/o.

C+C+I F Paano /ita nilapastananan=

ESH F Mabuti pa lu"abas /a na. +indi na a/o "a/i/ipausap sa6#o. 5u"abas /a na. Masu"bon /a. 3

3s a result of petitioner6s recordin of the event and allein that the said act of secretl# tapin theconfrontation (as illeal, private respondent filed a cri"inal case before the Reional Brial Court ofPasa# Cit# for violation of Republic 3ct $8@@, entitled A3n 3ct to prohibit and penalie (ire tappinand other related violations of private co""unication, and other purposes.A 3n infor"ation charinpetitioner of violation of the said 3ct, dated October , 01%% is uoted here(ith<

3+ORMA53O+

Bhe ndersined 3ssistant Cit# !iscal 3ccusses Socorro D. Ra"ire of Violation ofRepublic 3ct No. $8@@, co""itted as follo(s<

Bhat on or about the 88nd da# of !ebruar#, 01%%, in Pasa# Cit# MetroManila, Philippines, and (ithin the ?urisdiction of this honorable court,the above;na"ed accused, Socorro D. Ra"ire not bein authoriedb# Ester S. Harcia to record the latter6s conversation (ith saidaccused, did then and there (illfull#, unla(full# and feloniousl#, (iththe use of a tape recorder secretl# record the said conversation andthereafter co""unicate in (ritin the contents of the said recordin

to other person.

Contrar# to la(.

Pasa# Cit#, Metro Manila, Septe"ber 0, 01%%.

M3RI3NO M.CNEB3

3sst. Cit# !iscal


26/150

pon arrain"ent, in lieu of a plea, petitioner filed a Motion to :uash the Infor"ation on the roundthat the facts chared do not constitute an offense, particularl# a violation of R.3. $8@@. In an orderMa# &, 01%1, the trial court ranted the Motion to :uash, areein (ith petitioner that 0' the factschared do not constitute an offense under R.3. $8@@> and that 8' the violation punished b# R.3.$8@@ refers to a the tapin of a co""unication b# a personot#er than a participant to theco""unication. :

!ro" the trial court6s Order, the private respondent filed a Petition for Revie( on "ertiorari (ith thisCourt, (hich forth(ith referred the case to the Court of 3ppeals in a Resolution b# the !irst Division'of )une 01, 01%1.

On !ebruar# 1, 011@, respondent Court of 3ppeals pro"ulated its assailed Decision declarin thetrial court6s order of Ma# &, 01%1 null and void, and holdin that<

BJhe alleations sufficientl# constitute an offense punishable under Section 0 of R.3.$8@@. In thus uashin the infor"ation based on the round that the facts alleed donot constitute an offense, the respondent ?ude acted in rave abuse of discretioncorrectible b# certiorari . 5

Conseuentl#, on !ebruar# 80, 011@, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (hich respondentCourt of 3ppeals denied in its Resolution 6 dated )une 01, 011@. +ence, the instant petition.

Petitioner viorousl# arues, as her A"ain and principal issueA 7 that the applicable provision ofRepublic 3ct $8@@ does not appl# to the tapin of a private conversation b# one of the parties to theconversation. She contends that the provision "erel# refers to the unauthoried tapin of a privateconversation b# a part# other than those involved in the co""unication. 8 In relation to this, petitioneravers that the substance or content of the conversation "ust be alleed in the Infor"ation, other(ise thefacts chared (ould not constitute a violation of R.3. $8@@. 9 !inall#, petitioner aues that R.3. $8@@penalies the tapin of a Aprivate co""unication,A not a Aprivate conversationA and that conseuentl#, heract of secretl# tapin her conversation (ith private respondent (as not illeal under the said act. 10

-e disaree.

!irst, leislative intent is deter"ined principall# fro" the lanuae of a statute. -here the lanuaeof a statute is clear and una"biuous, the la( is applied accordin to its e7press ter"s, andinterpretation (ould be resorted to onl# (here a literal interpretation (ould be either i"possible 11 orabsurb or (ould lead to an in?ustice. 1<

Section 0 of R.3. $8@@ entitled, A 3n 3ct to Prohibit and Penalied -ire Bappin and Other RelatedViolations of Private Co""unication and Other Purposes,A provides<

Sec. 0. It shall be unla(full for an# person, not bein authoried b# all the parties toan# private co""unication or spo/en (ord, to tap an# (ire or cable, or b# usin an#

other device or arrane"ent, to secretl# overhear, intercept, or record suchco""unication or spo/en (ord b# usin a device co""onl# /no(n as a dictaphoneor dictaraph or detectaphone or (al/ie;tal/ie or tape recorder, or ho(ever other(isedescribed.

Bhe aforestated provision clearl# and uneuivocall# "a/es it illeal for an# person, not authoried b#all the parties to an# private co""unication to secretl# record such co""unication b# "eans of atape recorder. Bhe la( "a/es no distinction as to (hether the part# souht to be penalied b# thestatute ouht to be a part# other than or different fro" those involved in the private co""unication.


27/150

Bhe statute6s intent to penalie all persons unauthoried to "a/e such recordin is underscored b#the use of the ualifier Aan#A. Conseuentl#, as respondent Court of 3ppeals correctl# concluded,Aeven a person' priv# to a co""unication (ho records his private conversation (ith another (ithoutthe /no(lede of the latter (ill' ualif# as a violatorA 13 under this provision of R.3. $8@@.

3 perusal of the Senate Conressional Records, "oreover, supports the respondent court6s

conclusion that in enactin R.3. $8@@ our la("a/ers indeed conte"plated to "a/e illeal,unauthoried tape recordin of private conversations or co""unications ta/en either b# the partiesthe"selves or b# third persons. Bhus<

777 777 777

Senator Baada< Bhat ualified onl# AoverhearA.

Senator Padilla< So that (hen it is intercepted or recorded, the ele"ent of secrec#(ould not appear to be "aterial. No(, suppose, Lour +onor, the recordin is not"ade b# all the parties but b# so"e parties and involved not cri"inal cases that(ould be "entioned under section & but (ould cover, for e7a"ple civil cases or

special proceedins (hereb# a recordin is "ade not necessaril# b# all the partiesbut perhaps b# so"e in an effort to sho( the intent of the parties because theactuation of the parties prior, si"ultaneous even subseuent to the contract or theact "a# be indicative of their intention. Suppose there is such a recordin, (ould #ousa#, Lour +onor, that the intention is to cover it (ithin the purvie( of this bill oroutside=

Senator Baada< Bhat is covered b# the purvie( of this bill, Lour +onor.

Senator Padilla< Even if the record should be used not in the prosecution of offensebut as evidence to be used in Civil Cases or special proceedins=

Senator Baada< Bhat is riht. Bhis is a complete an on tape recordedconversations taken wit#out t#e aut#oriation of all t#e parties.

Senator Padilla< No(, (ould that be reasonable, #our +onor=

Senator Baada< I believe it is reasonable because it is not sporting to record t#eoservation of one wit#out #is knowing it and t#en using it against #im. 3t is not fair, it is not sportsmanlike. If the purpose> Lour honor, is to record the intention of theparties. I believe that all the parties should /no( that the observations are beinrecorded.

Senator Padilla< Bhis "iht reduce the utilit# of recorders.

Senator Baada< -ell no. !or e7a"ple, I (as to sa# that in "eetins of the board ofdirectors (here a tape recordin is ta/en, there is no ob?ection to this if all the parties/no(. It is but fair that the people (hose re"ar/s and observations are bein "adeshould /no( that the observations are bein recorded.

Senator Padilla< No(, I can understand.


28/150

Senator Baada< Bhat is (h# (hen (e ta/e state"ents of persons, (e sa#< APleasebe infor"ed that (hatever #ou sa# here "a# be used aainst #ou.A Bhat is fairnessand that is (hat (e de"and. No(, in spite of that (arnin, he "a/es da"ainstate"ents aainst his o(n interest, (ell, he cannot co"plain an# "ore. 0ut if youare going to take a recording of t#e oservations and remarks of a person wit#out#im knowing t#at it is eing taped or recorded, wit#out #im knowing t#at w#at is

eing recorded may e used against #im, 3 t#ink it is unfair .

777 777 777

Conression Record, Vol. III, No. &0, p. 9%$, March 08, 01$'

Senator Dio/no< Do #ou understand, Mr. Senator, that under Section 0 of the bill asno( (orded, if a party secretly records a pulic speec#, he (ould be penalied under Section 0= 4ecause the speech is public, but the recordin is done secretl#.

Senator Baada< -ell, that particular aspect is not conte"plated b# the bill. 3t is t#ecommunication etween one person and anot#er person 6 not etween a speaker

and a pulic .

777 777 777

Conressional Record, Vol. III, No. &&, p. 8, March 08, 01$'

777 777 777

Bhe una"biuit# of the e7press (ords of the provision, ta/en toether (ith the above;uoteddeliberations fro" the Conressional Record, therefore plainl# supports the vie( held b# therespondent court that the provision see/s to penalie even those priv# to the privateco""unications. -here the la( "a/es no distinctions, one does not distinuish.

Second, the nature of the conversations is i""aterial to a violation of the statute. Bhe substance ofthe sa"e need not be specificall# alleed in the infor"ation. -hat R.3. $8@@ penalies are the actsof secretl# over#earing, intercepting or recording private co""unications b# "eans of the devicesenu"erated therein. Bhe "ere alleation that an individual "ade a secret recordin of a privateco""unication b# "eans of a tape recorder (ould suffice to constitute an offense under Section 0 of R.3. $8@@. 3s the Solicitor Heneral pointed out in his COMMENB before the respondent court<ANo(here in the said la(' is it reuired that before one can be rearded as a violator, the nature ofthe conversation, as (ell as its co""unication to a third person should be professed.A1:

!inall#, petitioner6s contention that the phrase Aprivate co""unicationA in Section 0 of R.3. $8@@does not include Aprivate conversationsA narro(s the ordinar# "eanin of the (ord Aco""unicationA

to a point of absurdit#. Bhe (ord co""unicate co"es fro" the latin (ord communicare, "eanin Atoshare or to i"part.A In its ordinar# sinification, co""unication connotes the act of sharin ori"partin sinification, co""unication connotes the act of sharin or i"partin, as ina conversation, 15 or sinifies the Aprocess b# (hich "eanins or thouhts are shared bet(eenindividuals throuh a co""on s#ste" of s#"bols as lanuae sins or estures'A 16 Bhese definitionsare broad enouh to include verbal or non;verbal, (ritten or e7pressive co""unications of A"eanins orthouhtsA (hich are li/el# to include the e"otionall#;chared e7chane, on !ebruar# 88, 01%%, bet(eenpetitioner and private respondent, in the privac# of the latter6s office. 3n# doubts about the leislativebod#6s "eanin of the phrase Aprivate co""unicationA are, further"ore, put to rest b# the fact that the


29/150

ter"s AconversationA and Aco""unicationA (ere interchaneabl# used b# Senator Baada in hisE7planator# Note to the bill uoted belo(<

It has been said that innocent people have nothin to fear fro"their conversations bein overheard. 4ut this state"ent inores the usual natureof conversations as (ell the undeniable fact that "ost, if not all, civilied people have

so"e aspects of their lives the# do not (ish to e7pose. !reeconversations are oftencharacteried b# e7aerations, obscenit#, areeable falsehoods, and thee7pression of anti;social desires of vie(s not intended to be ta/en seriousl#. Bheriht to the privacy of communication, a"on others, has e7pressl# been assured b#our Constitution. Needless to state here, the fra"ers of our Constitution "ust havereconied the nature of conversations bet(een individuals and the sinificance of"an6s spiritual nature, of his feelins and of his intellect. Bhe# "ust have /no(n thatpart of the pleasures and satisfactions of life are to be found in the unaudited, andfree e7chane of communication bet(een individuals F free fro" ever# un?ustifiableintrusion b# (hatever "eans. 17

In %aanan vs. 3ntermediate Appellate "ourt , 18 a case (hich dealt (ith the issue of telephone(iretappin, (e held that the use of a telephone e7tension for the purpose of overhearin a privateconversation (ithout authoriation did not violate R.3. $8@@ because a telephone e7tension devise (asneither a"on those Adevices' or arrane"ents'A enu"erated therein, 19 follo(in the principle thatApenal statutes "ust be construed strictl# in favor of the accused.A


30/150

Petition for certiorari and prohibition to revie( the order of respondent )ude, dated !ebruar# 8@,01%0, den#in petitioner6s "otion to uash in Cri"inal Case No. 08980, entitled< APeople of thePhilippines vs. 3tt#. 3lfredo MalitA, as (ell as the order of sa"e respondent, dated Ma# 9, 01%0,(hich denied petitioner6s "otion for reconsideration.

It appears on record that herein petitioner (as counsel of Miss Ruth !ernande in an ad"inistrative

case filed aainst her b# Dr. Macaspac. 3t the hearin of the case on )anuar# 02, 01%@, Dr.Macaspac Identified certain e7hibits on the (itness stand. On cross;e7a"ination b# herein petitioner,

3tt#. Malit, if she /ne( the person (ho A"adeA a certain e7hibit, Dr. Macaspac evaded the uestionb# sa#in she did not understand the (ord A"ade.A Petitioner tried to e7plain b# sa#in that it "eansAprepared.A Not(ithstandin, Dr. Macaspac (ould not ans(er and, instead, as/ed petitioner forclarification. Bhis pro"pted 3tt#. Malit to sa#< AI doubt ho( did #ou beco"e a Doctor.A 3s aconseuence, Dr. Macaspac instituted a co"plaint for slander aainst herein petitioner (ith the!iscal6s Office of Caloocan Cit#.

On !ebruar# 8%, 01%@, an infor"ation for un?ust ve7ation doc/eted as Cri"inal Case No. 08980(as filed b# Special Counsel 3polinario 3. E7evea (hich reads<

Bhat on or about the 02th da# of )anuar#, 01%@ in Caloocan Cit#, Metro Manila and(ithin the ?urisdiction of this +onorable Court, the above; na"ed accused (ithoutan# ?ustifiable cause, did then and there (illfull#, unla(full# and feloniousl# ve7 andanno# one Coraon I. Macaspac, b# then and there utterin the follo(in re"ar/sdirectl# addressed to the latter<

I DO4B +O- DID LO 4ECOME 3 DOCBOR to her reat anno#ance, ve7ationand disust.

Petitioner filed a "otion to uash on the round that Athe facts chared do not constitute an offense.A

Respondent )ude denied the "otion to uash, as (ell as the "otion for reconsideration raisin theround that the court has no ?urisdiction because the facts chared in the infor"ation are privileedco""unication.

It is the position of petitioner that the state"ent AI doubt ho( did #ou beco"e a doctorA does notconstitute an offense as it (as uttered at the ti"e he (as conductin the cross;e7a"ination of Dr.Macaspac> that utterances "ade in the course of ?udicial proceedins, includin all /inds ofpleadins and "otions belon to the class of co""unication that are absolutel# privileed.

On the other hand, respondents "aintain that an order den#in a "otion to uash cannot be thesub?ect of certiorari (hich is a re"ed# to /eep an inferior court (ithin the li"its of its ?urisdiction> thatthe deli"itation of the correctness, if at all, should be brouht on appeal, after the trial of the raiseand not in certiorari> that petitioner6s contention that the act co"plained of does not constitute an

offense because it is protected b# the "antle of privilee is strictl# a "atter of defense.

Petitioner6s contention should be sustained. -ell settled is the rule that parties, counsel and(itnesses are e7e"pted fro" liabilit# in libel or slander cases for (ords other(ise defa"ator#,uttered or published in the course of ?udicial proceedins, provided the state"ents are pertinent orrelevant to the case.


31/150

-here the libelous or slanderous (ords published in the course of ?udicialproceedins are connected (ith, or relevant, pertinent or "aterial to, the cause inhand or sub?ect of inuir#, the sa"e "a# be considered privileed co""unicationand the counsel, parties, or (itnesses therein are e7e"pt fro" liabilit#. See 9&C.).S. 02@;020> Bupas vs. Parreo, et al. H.R. No. 5;089$9, 3pril &@, 0191, andauthorities cited therein'. Bolentino vs. 4a#losis, 00@ Phil. 0@0@'

3nd, as to the deree of relevanc# or pertinenc# necessar# to "a/e alleed defa"ator# "atterprivileed, the courts are inclined to be liberal. Bhe "atter to (hich the privilee does not e7tend"ust be so palpabl# (antin in relation to the sub?ect "atter of the controvers# that no reasonable"an can doubt its irrelevance and i"propriet#. People vs. 3ndres, 0@2 Phil. 0@$'.

In the case at bar, petitioner (as pro"pted to sa#< AI doubt ho( did #ou beco"e a doctorA (hen Dr.Macaspac (ould not ans(er the uestion as to (ho prepared the docu"ent presented to her, and(hen the (itness repeatedl# evaded the uestion b# sa#in that she did not understand the (ordA"ade.A

Ne(el in his (or/ on Bhe 5a( of Slander and 5ibel, $th ed., uses the follo(in lanuae<

Asolute )rivilege.FIn this class of cases it is considered in the interest of public(elfare that all persons should be allo(ed to e7press their senti"ents and spea/their "inds full# and fearlessl# upon all uestions and sub?ects> and all actions for(ords so spo/en are absolutel# forbidden, even if it be alleed and proved that the(ords (ere spo/en falsel#, /no(inl# and (ith e7press "alice. Section &9@, pp.&%2;&%%'.

It is, thus, clear that utterances "ade in the course of ?udicial or ad"inistrative proceedins belonto the class of co""unications that are absolutel# privileed. Stated other(ise, the privilee isranted in aid and for the advantae of the ad"inistration of ?ustice. 3s this Court observed in Sisonvs. David Supra'<

... Bhe privilee is not intended so "uch for the protection of those enaed in thepublic service and in the enact"ent and ad"inistration of la(, as for the pro"otion of the public (elfare, the purpose bein that "e"bers of the leislature, ?udes ofcourts, ?urors, la(#ers, and (itnesses "a# spea/ their "inds freel# and e7ercisetheir respective functions (ithout incurrin the ris/ of a cri"inal prosecution or anaction for the recover# of da"aes. && 3". )ur. 08&;08$'

Henerall#, certiorari does not lie to uestion the propriet# of an interlocutor# order of the trial court.Interlocutor# orders ordinaril# should be revie(ed (hen an appeal is ta/en fro" the trial court6s

?ud"ent. Not ever# procedural error or erroneous leal or factual conclusion a"ounts to raveabuse of discretion. +o(ever, as this Court ruled in Sanche, et al vs. +on. Mariano 3. osa, et al.,5;82@$&, Nove"ber 8%, 0129', A(hen a rave abuse of discretion (as patentl# co""itted, or the

lo(er court acted capriciousl# and (hi"sicall#, then it devolves upon this Court in a certiorariproceedin to e7ercise its supervisor# authorit# and to correct the error co""itted (hich, in such acase, is euivalent to lac/ of ?urisdiction. A

-+ERE!ORE, the trial court6s orders of !ebruar# 8@, 01%0 and Ma# 9, 01%0 are reversed and setaside. Respondent is hereb# ordered to desist and refrain fro" proceedin (ith the trial of Cri"inalCase No. 08980.

SO ORDERED.


32/150


Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-38753 August


33/150

aainst the private respondent, the said petitioner sent the sub?ect libelous telera" orco""unication to the Secretar# of Public -or/s and Co""unication, (hich (as indorsed forinvestiation to the said 4oard of Bransportation on October &0, 0128, b# first endorse"ent of thesaid Depart"ent Secretar#, dated Oct. &0, 0128 to the Chair"an of the 4oard of Bransportation (itha true cop# of the said first indorse"ent attachedJ> c' On Nove"ber 8&, 0128, the petitioner filed ana"ended ad"inistrative co"plaint aainst the private respondent (ith the sa"e 4oard of

Bransportation doc/eted therein as 3d". Case No. 28;0, charin the private respondent (ithdishonest#, pursuit of private business or corrupt practices, and "isconduct or discourtes# (ith atrue cop# of the said a"ended co"pliant attachedJ> d' Bhe private respondent, sub"itted her ans(er to the said ad"inistrative chares, and after due hearin, the 4oard of Bransportation rendered adecision on )une 8, 012&, findin the herein private respondent as innocent of the chares, anddis"issin the co"plaint filed aainst her (ith a true cop# of the said decision attachedJ> e' On )ul#02, 012& petitioner, as co"plainant therein, filed a "otion for reconsideration of the decision of the4oard of Bransportation, but the said 4oard, in an order issued on 3uust 81, 012&, denied said"otion for reconsideration for lac/ of "erit (ith a cop# of said order attachedJ> f' -hile the

3d"inistrative Case No. 28;0 (as pendin deter"ination before the 4oard of Bransportation,petitioner, to further harass and "alin the ood character and reputation of the private respondent,filed (ith the Constabular# +ih(a# Patrol Hroup C+PH', a co"plaint aainst the privaterespondent and her husband 5oreno M. Mercado accusin the" of sellin a !ord -ill#s enine,

(hich (as carnapped. Bhe said office, ho(ever, after due hearin, issued a resolution on !ebruar#1, 012&, reco""endin that the said case be closed for lac/ of evidence (ith a cop# of the saidresolution attachedJ> ' 3lso durin the pendenc# of the ad"inistrative co"plaint filed b# petitioneraainst the private respondent in the 4oard of Bransportation, petitioner filed (ith the Cri"inalInvestiation Service CIS', PC, Ca"p Cra"e, :ueon Cit#, a co"plaint for corrupt practices aainstthe private respondent> and after due investiation the CIS, in ans(er to the letter of privaterespondent6s counsel, dated March 8$, 012& (ith a true cop# attachedJ. reuestin infor"ationabout the result of the said investiation, sent a letter to said counsel, dated March 82, 012&,advisin hi" that the said case is considered closed for insufficienc# of evidence (ith a cop# of thesaid letter attachedJ.A 3

Bhe co""ent (as considered as ans(er and the case (as set

Bigamy and Crimes Against Honor

Documents

Transcript of Bigamy and Crimes Against Honor