Laurel v. Abrogar
REVERSALFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns criminal charges of theft against petitioner Luis Marcos P. Laurel. The Amended Information alleged that the accused, through a method known as International Simple Resale (ISR), unlawfully took and used international long distance calls belonging to Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT). This method involved routing and completing international calls using PLDT's facilities, thereby allegedly stealing PLDT's business and services, causing damage estimated at P20,370,651.92. Procedural History: Petitioner was charged with theft in Criminal Case No. 99-2425 before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 150. He filed a Motion to Quash the Amended Information, arguing that the factual allegations did not constitute the crime of theft. The trial court denied this motion, as well as a subsequent motion for reconsideration. A special civil action for certiorari filed by the petitioner with the Court of Appeals was also dismissed. This led to the filing of the instant petition for review with the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petitioner sought to quash the Amended Information on the grounds that the alleged acts did not constitute theft, as international long distance calls and the business of providing telecommunication services are not personal properties under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. The Supreme Court, in a prior resolution, granted the petition, reversed the lower courts' decisions, and directed the trial court to quash the Amended Information. However, PLDT filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the Amended Information was valid and that international calls and the business of providing such services are personal properties capable of appropriation under the Revised Penal Code, citing various legal precedents and definitions. The Supreme Court, in its subsequent En Banc decision, reconsidered its earlier ruling, affirmed the denial of the motion to quash, but remanded the case to the trial court with a directive to amend the Amended Information to clearly state that the property subject of the theft were the services and business of PLDT, not the calls themselves.
Issue(s)
Whether the factual allegations in the Amended Information sufficiently constitute the crime of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, and whether international long distance calls, telecommunication services, and the business of providing such services constitute 'personal property' that can be the object of theft. Whether the Amended Information accurately describes the property subject of the theft.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the Motion for Reconsideration, set aside its previous decision, and remanded the case to the trial court with a directive to amend the Amended Information. The trial court was ordered to clarify that the property subject of the theft were the services and business of PLDT, not the international long distance calls themselves.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether international long distance calls, telecommunication services, and the business of providing such services constitute 'personal property' that can be the object of theft and whether the factual allegations in the Amended Information sufficiently constitute the crime of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code: The Court held that the business of providing telecommunication services and the telephone services themselves are personal property under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. This is based on jurisprudence established prior to the Revised Penal Code, such as in United States v. Genato, United States v. Carlos, and United States v. Tambunting, which consistently ruled that any personal property, tangible or intangible, corporeal or incorporeal, capable of appropriation can be the object of theft. Furthermore, the term 'personal property' in the Revised Penal Code should be interpreted in the context of the Civil Code, which defines personal property as anything susceptible of appropriation and not real property. The Court noted that while international long distance calls may take the form of electrical energy, which is considered personal property under Article 416(3) of the Civil Code, PLDT, as a service provider, does not own the calls themselves. Instead, PLDT owns the facilities and infrastructure used to transmit these calls. Therefore, the unlawful taking of these services and the business of providing them, through methods like International Simple Resale (ISR), constitutes theft. The Court emphasized that 'taking' under Article 308 does not require 'asportation' but only the intent to appropriate, meaning to deprive the lawful owner of possession and dominion. On whether the Amended Information accurately describes the property subject of the theft: The Court found that while the acts of engaging in ISR constitute theft of PLDT's services and business, the Amended Information inaccurately described the stolen property as 'international long distance calls.' The Court clarified that the business and services of PLDT are the actual subject of the theft, not the calls themselves, as PLDT does not own the calls but merely provides the facilities for their transmission. Therefore, to ensure the accused is fully apprised of the charge, the Amended Information must be corrected to clearly state that the property subject of the theft are the services and business of PLDT. This amendment is not to correct a mistake in charging the proper offense, as the crime is correctly designated as theft, but to ensure clarity and sufficiency of the information.
Main Doctrine
The business of providing telecommunication services and the services themselves constitute personal property under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, and engaging in International Simple Resale (ISR) to unlawfully obtain these services and business for profit constitutes theft. However, an Information must clearly state that the subject of the theft is the services and business, not merely the 'international long distance calls'.