People v. Laurel
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) alleged that Baynet Co., Ltd. (Baynet) engaged in International Simple Resale (ISR), a method of routing international calls that bypasses PLDT's International Gateway Facility (IGF), thereby defrauding PLDT of access, termination, and accounting charges. Baynet subscribed to 123 PLDT telephone lines and utilized various telecommunications equipment for its ISR activities. PLDT estimated significant monthly losses due to these operations. Baynet was not authorized to provide international or domestic long-distance telephone service. Following a raid on Baynet's office and the seizure of equipment, an inquest investigation found probable cause for theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code and Presidential Decree No. 401. An Amended Information was filed charging, among others, Luis Marcos P. Laurel, a board member and corporate secretary of Baynet, with theft for allegedly stealing international long distance calls belonging to PLDT, amounting to P20,370,651.92. Procedural History: Accused Laurel filed a Motion to Quash the Amended Information, arguing that the factual allegations did not constitute theft as telephone calls and the business of providing them are not personal property under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution opposed, contending that intangible telephone services, the use of facilities, and derived revenues constitute personal property subject to theft. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion to quash, initially stating that the alleged acts constituted theft and later ruling that PLDT's 'business' was stolen, citing that interest in business is personal property. Laurel's motion for reconsideration was also denied. He then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA dismissed the petition, holding that a petition for certiorari was not the proper remedy but, on the merits, ruled that PLDT's business of providing international calls is personal property subject to theft. Laurel appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner Laurel assailed the CA's decision, arguing that the CA erred in ruling that the stolen property was PLDT's 'business' and that 'business' constitutes personal property under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. He maintained that the Amended Information charged him with stealing 'international long distance calls,' not PLDT's business.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals was the proper remedy. Whether international telephone calls, telecommunication services, or PLDT's business of providing such services constitute personal property subject to theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in denying the motion to quash the Amended Information.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the assailed Orders of the Regional Trial Court and the Decision of the Court of Appeals, directing the RTC to issue an order granting the motion to quash the Amended Information.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the certiorari petition: The Supreme Court held that while generally an appeal is the proper remedy for an order denying a motion to quash, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is available if the trial court issued the order with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction, or if the order is patently erroneous or null and void. The Court found that the RTC's denial of the motion to quash was a patent nullity because the Amended Information did not allege facts constituting theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, thus depriving the petitioner of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the charge against him. The Court noted that compelling the petitioner to undergo a protracted trial for a non-existent charge would be unjust. On whether international telephone calls, services, or business are subject to theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code: The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. The Court emphasized that penal laws must be construed strictly and that Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines theft as the taking of personal property, contemplates only movable properties with physical or material existence that are susceptible of occupation and appropriation. The Court distinguished between tangible goods and intangible rights or ideas, stating that only the former can be the subject of theft. While acknowledging that intangible properties like electricity and gas can be subjects of theft because they are capable of appropriation and have physical manifestations, the Court held that business and services, including telecommunication services, are abstract and intangible and cannot be physically 'taken' or 'occupied' in the manner contemplated by the law. The Court noted that the Revised Penal Code was enacted long before the advent of modern telecommunications technology and could not have contemplated such services as subjects of theft. The Court cited numerous foreign jurisdictions that had to enact specific statutes to penalize theft of services, highlighting the inadequacy of existing theft provisions for such acts. On the trial court's grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court found that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in denying the motion to quash. The Amended Information, as worded, charged the petitioner with stealing 'international long distance calls belonging to PLDT' and the use thereof through ISR. The Court clarified that the P20,370,651.92 mentioned was not the value of stolen property but the estimated uncollected charges. Since the Court ruled that these calls, services, and business are not personal property under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, the allegations in the Amended Information did not constitute the offense of theft. Therefore, the RTC's refusal to quash the information based on these allegations was a patent nullity and constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
International telephone calls, telecommunication services, and the business of providing such services are not considered personal property subject to theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, as the law, enacted prior to modern technological advancements, contemplates tangible, movable properties that can be physically taken and appropriated.