LAUREL V ABROGAR
, the connection and interconnection to their telephone lines/facilities; 2) the use of
FACTS:
The case is a motion to reversed the previos decision of the court. Laurel is one of the
accused in the Criminal case file in RTC Makti for the crime of Thef
On 10-19 September 1999, the accused was found guilty of conspiring with other accused,
with intent to gain and without knowledge and consent of PLDT steal feloniously the use of
International calls belonging to PLDT by means of ISR or Intl Simple Resale which allows
complete international long distance calls using cables, lines and the like which connects
directly to the local exchange where calls are being connected that effectively affected the
PLDT business and damage amounting to 20B.
Baynet offers alternative calling service which sekks Bay Suoer Orient Cards which are phone
cards allowing calls from Japan with 27mins call to Ph. PLDT discovered that there are 123
PLDT subscribers connected with the Baynet for intl calls. In the records of SEC they found
that Baynet is not authorized to provide such service. Upon the complaint of the
respondednt there were two search warrants issued by RTC of Makati and NBI conducted
searched in office at Kalayaan Makati. Afer further investigation, Laurel(member of Board of
Baynet, also a partner of Ingles, Laurel, Salinas Law office) was charged with thef.
They filed motion to quash o ground that facts alleged do not constitute thef under Art 308.
PLDT filed MR to Motion to Refer to SC En banc the case. PLDT maintained the position on
alleging that Thef was committed by the accused. PLDT claims that RPC doesn’t required
importation rather the sole requisite is that the object is able to be used for appropriation.
PLDT contends that calls/ intl calls aren electric currents or sets of electric impulses
transmitted via medium, and carries pattern for human voice, are personal properties
subject to thef. In the MR of Laurel he contends that PLDT was wrong in comparing
telephone call and electric current or impulses. PLDT does not produce telephone calls
rather provides facilities. The business is not a personal property rather only has the right to
carry the business.
The prosecution, through private complainant PLDT, opposed the motion, contending that
the movant unlawfully took personal property belonging to it, as follows: 1) intangible
telephone services that are being offered by PLDT and other telecommunication companies,
i.e.
those facilities over a period of time; and 3) the revenues derived in connection with the
rendition of such services and the use of such facilities.
ISSUE: Whether PLDT in providing Telecomm considered such business as personal property
susceptible for thef
RULING:
No. the Court ruled that PLDT in providing business is not considered as personal property
under RPC Art 308.
Under the law, Art. 308. Who are liable for thef.– Thef 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 latter’s consent.
The Court ruled that the international telephone calls placed by Bay Super Orient Card
holders, the telecommunication services provided by PLDT and its business of providing said
services are not personal properties under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. An
information or complaint for simple thef must allege the following elements: (a) the taking
of personal property; (b) the said property belongs to another; (c) the taking be done with
intent to gain; and (d) the taking be accomplished without the use of violence or
intimidation of person/s or force upon things.
One is apt to conclude that "personal property" standing alone, covers both tangible and
intangible properties and are subject of thef under the Revised Penal Code. But the words
"Personal property" under the Revised Penal Code must be considered in tandem with the
word "take" in the law. The statutory definition of "taking" and movable property indicates
that, clearly, not all personal properties may be the proper subjects of thef. The general rule
is that, only movable properties which have physical or material existence and susceptible of
occupation by another are proper objects of thef.
Respondent PLDT does not acquire possession, much less, ownership of the voices of the
telephone callers or of the electronic voice signals or current emanating from said calls. The
human voice and the electronic voice signals or current caused thereby are intangible and
not susceptible of possession, occupation or appropriation by the respondent PLDT or even
the petitioner, for that matter. PLDT merely transmits the electronic voice signals through its
facilities and equipment. Baynet Card Ltd., through its operator, merely intercepts, reroutes
the calls and passes them to its toll center. Indeed, the parties called receive the telephone
calls from Japan.

The court finds merit to reverse and set aside the decision of RTC and CA to deny motion to
quash.