Case Digest (G.R. No. 155076)
Facts:
LUIS MARCOS P. LAUREL, PETITIONER was impleaded in an Amended Information for theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, accused of participating in International Simple Resale (ISR) operations through Baynet Co., Ltd. that allegedly diverted international calls and caused PLDT losses; NBI agents executed a November 8, 1999 search, seized equipment, and State Prosecutor filed the Amended Information alleging an estimated P20,370,651.92 damage to PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY (PLDT).
The RTC, Makati Branch 150, denied petitioner’s Motion to Quash; the Court of Appeals affirmed that denial, and petitioner sought certiorari review before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, Rules of Court a proper remedy to assail the RTC order denying the Motion to Quash?
- Do international telephone calls, telecommunication services, or a telecommunication company’s business constitute “personal property” under Article 308, Revised Penal Code and thus subjects of theft?
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion to Quash?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court granted the petition, held that the RTC order denying the Motion to Quash was a patent nullity, reversed and set aside the Orders of the RTC and the Decision of the Court of Appeals, and directed the RTC to grant the Motion to Quash. The Court ruled that international calls, telecommunication services, and the business of providing such services are not personal property under Article 308 and therefore cannot form the basis of theft under that provision.
Ratio:
The Court applied the rule that penal statutes are construed strictly and, when ambiguous, in favor of lenity; it found that Article 308 contemplates the taking of movable things capable of possession or appropriation, and that voices, electronic impulses, services, and business interests are intangible rights not susceptible of being “taken” or possessed in the manner required for theft. The Court distinguished electricity and gas as intangible commodities capable of appropriation under precedent, but held that telecommunication calls and services do not share those characteristics and thus fall outside Article 308; criminalization of such conduct must come from Congress by specific statute.
Doctrine:
- A writ of certiorari under Rule 65, Rules of Court is available against an interlocutory order when the order is a patent nullity or shows grave abuse of discretion and appeal is inadequate.
- (Get Pro to unlock 5 more doctrines)