Case Digest (G.R. No. 217866)
Facts:
In 596 Phil. 45 (En Banc, January 13, 2009), petitioner Luis Marcos P. Laurel was one of the accused in Criminal Case No. 99-2425 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 150, presided over by Judge Zeus C. Abrogar. The Amended Information charged Laurel and his co-accused with theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, alleging that between September 10 and 19, 1999, they conspired to steal and use international long distance calls belonging to the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) by conducting International Simple Resale (ISR). The estimated damage to PLDT was ₱20,370,651.92. Laurel filed a Motion to Quash on the ground that the factual allegations failed to constitute the felony of theft. The RTC denied the motion and likewise dismissed his Motion for Reconsideration. On special civil action, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, prompting Laurel to elevate the case to the Supreme Court. On February 27, 2006, the First Division grCase Digest (G.R. No. 217866)
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Petitioner Luis Marcos P. Laurel was charged in Criminal Case No. 99-2425 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 150.
- The Amended Information accused him of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code for conducting International Simple Resale (ISR) of PLDT’s international long-distance calls, causing estimated damage of ₱20,370,651.92 to Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT).
- Procedural History
- Laurel filed a Motion to Quash the Amended Information for failure to state a felony; the RTC denied it, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed. He then sought review in the Supreme Court (SC).
- On February 27, 2006, the SC First Division granted his petition, reversed the RTC and CA, and ordered the Information quashed. PLDT moved for reconsideration and referral to the SC En Banc.
- The En Banc granted PLDT’s motion, set aside the First Division’s decision, affirmed the CA’s denial of the Motion to Quash, and remanded the case to the RTC with instructions to amend the Amended Information to specify that the property taken consisted of PLDT’s services and business.
Issues:
- Does the Amended Information validly charge theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code by alleging the theft of international long-distance calls and the business of providing telephone service?
- Are “international phone calls,” and the “business of providing telecommunication or telephone service,” personal property capable of appropriation and thus subject to theft under the Revised Penal Code?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)