4.

Laurel v Abrogar
FACTS
Laurel was charged with Theft under Art. 308 of the RPC for allegedly taking, stealing, and using PLDT's
international long distance calls by conducting International Simple Resale (ISR) a method of outing and
completing international long-distance calls using lines, cables, antennae, and/or air wave frequency
which connect directly to the local/domestic exchange facilities of the country where the call is destined.
PLDT alleged that this service was stolen from them using their own equipment and caused damage to
them amounting to P20,370,651.92.
PLDT alleges that the international calls and business of providing telecommunication or telephone service
are personal properties capable of appropriation and can be objects of theft.
ISSUE
WON Laurel's act constitutes Theft
HELD
Art.308, RPC: Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against, or
intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latters
consent.
Elements of Theft under Art.308, RPC:
1. There be taking of Personal Property;
2. Said Personal Property belongs to another;
3. Taking be done with Intent to Gain;
4. Taking be done without the owners consent;
5. No violence against, or intimidation of, persons or force upon things
Personal Property anything susceptible of appropriation and not included in Real Property
Thus, the term personal property as used in Art.308, RPC should be interpreted in the context of the
Civil Code's definition of real and personal property. Consequently, any personal property, tangible or
intangible, corporeal or incorporeal, capable of appropriation may be the subject of theft (*US v Carlos; US
v Tambunting; US v Genato*), so long as the same is not included in the enumeration of Real Properties
under the Civil Code.
The only requirement for personal property to capable of theft, is that it be subject to appropriation.
Art. 416 (3) of the Civil Code deems Forces of Nature which are brought under the control of science, as
Personal Property.
The appropriation of forces of nature which are brought under control by science can be achieved by
tampering with any apparatus used for generating or measuring such forces of nature, wrongfully
redirecting such forces of nature from such apparatus, or using any device to fraudulently obtain such
forces of nature.
In the instant case, the act of conducting ISR operations by illegally connecting various equipment or
apparatus to PLDTs telephone system, through which petitioner is able to resell or re-route international
long distance calls using PLDTs facilities constitute Subtraction.
Moreover, interest in business should be classified as personal property since it is capable of
appropriation, and not included in the enumeration of real properties.
Therefore, the business of providing telecommunication or telephone service are personal property which
can be the object of theft under Art. 308 of the RPC. The act of engaging in ISR is an act of subtraction
penalized under the said article.
While international long-distance calls take the form of electrical energy and may be considered as
personal property, the said long-distance calls do not belong to PLDT since it could not have acquired
ownership over such calls. PLDT merely encodes, augments, enhances, decodes and transmits said calls
using its complex communications infrastructure and facilities.
Since PLDT does not own the said telephone calls, then it could not validly claim that such telephone calls
were taken without its consent.
What constitutes Theft is the use of the PLDT's communications facilities without PLDT's consent. The
theft lies in the unlawful taking of the telephone services & businesses.
The Amended Information should be amended to show that the property subject of the theft were services
and business of the offended party.

Facts:

Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) filed a complaint for theft under Article 308 of the
Revised Penal Code against Baynet Co., Ltd. (Baynet) for stealing its business. PLDT alleged that Baynet
offered phone cards to people in Japan to call their friends and relatives in the Philippines using PLDT's
facilities and equipment.
Issue:

Whether or not the PLDT's business of providing telecommunication services is a personal property under
Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.

Held:

No, PLDT's business of providing telecommunication services is not a personal property under Article 308
of the Revised Penal Code.

Personal property under the Revised Penal Code covers both tangible and intangible properties but must
be considered with the word "take" in the law. There is "taking" of personal property, and theft is
consummated when the offender unlawfully acquires possession of personal property even if for a short
time; or if such property is under the dominion and control of the thief. The statutory definition of "taking"
clearly indicates that not all personal properties may be the proper subjects of theft. The general rule is
that only movable properties, which have physical or material existence and susceptible of occupation by
another are proper subjects of theft. Movable properties under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code
should be distinguished from the rights or interest to which they relate to. While the rights or interests are
properties, they are not considered personal properties under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.

PLDT's business is intangible and cannot be taken by another and not the proper subjects of theft because
they are without form or substance.