Title
Laurel vs. Abrogar
Case
G.R. No. 155076
Decision Date
Feb 27, 2006
Baynet's ISR operations bypassed PLDT's IGF, leading to theft charges. SC ruled intangible services/business aren't theft under RPC, quashing charges.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 217866)

Core Facts

PLDT, a franchised telecommunication operator under RA 7082, alleged that Baynet conducted International Simple Resale (ISR) operations which routed international calls (originating, e.g., from Japan) through International Private Leased Lines (IPL) and switching equipment directly into PLDT telephone lines in the Philippines, thereby bypassing International Gateway Facilities (IGF) and evading access/termination charges. Baynet sold “Bay Super Orient Cards” enabling callers abroad to place calls purportedly routed as local NDD-capable calls in the Philippines. PLDT identified equipment (multiplexers, modems, antennas, computers, cables) and alleged Baynet subscribed to 123 PLDT lines; a traffic study purported a monthly loss estimate (P10,185,325.96) and the Amended Information alleged damage of P20,370,651.92. NBI searched Baynet premises on November 8, 1999; several operators were arrested and equipment seized. An inquest resolution (Jan 28, 2000) found probable cause for theft under Art. 308 RPC and PD 401; initial informations and an Amended Information were filed charging respondents, including Laurel, with theft by conducting ISR.

Amended Information and Defense Motion

The Amended Information accused the respondents of conspiring to “take, steal and use the international long distance calls belonging to PLDT by conducting International Simple Resale (ISR)” and alleged a quantified damage. Laurel moved to quash (and to defer arraignment) on the principal grounds that (a) the factual allegations did not constitute theft under Article 308 because international calls, telecommunication services, and revenues are not “personal property” within the meaning of that provision; (b) telephone calls belong to callers and PLDT merely supplies transmission facilities and is compensated by service charges/rental; and (c) ISR activities, even if wrongful, fall under the separate prosecution for violation of PD 401 then pending in a different court.

Prosecution and Private Complainant Contentions

PLDT and the prosecution contended that what was unlawfully taken included: (1) intangible telephone services offered by PLDT (connection and interconnection to its network); (2) the use of PLDT facilities over a period of time; and (3) the revenues derived from those services. The prosecution analogized the appropriation of PLDT’s telecommunication services to the theft of electricity or gas—intangible yet recognized as capable of appropriation—and relied on Department of Justice resolutions and precedents that found probable cause in related telecommunication fraud contexts.

Trial Court and Court of Appeals Rulings

The RTC (Branch 150) denied Laurel’s motion to quash, reasoning that the facts would show how the alleged crime was committed by conducting ISR and that the defendants effectively stole PLDT’s “business.” On reconsideration the RTC reiterated that PLDT’s “business” is personal property and cited Strochecker v. Ramirez on interest in business as personal property. Laurel petitioned for certiorari to the Court of Appeals; the CA dismissed the certiorari petition as an improper remedy but, on the merits, held that PLDT’s business of providing international calls constituted personal property subject to theft under Art. 308 and affirmed that the ISR operations were not subsumed by the PD 401 charge.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

(1) Whether a certiorari petition in the CA was an appropriate remedy to challenge the trial court’s denial of the motion to quash; (2) whether international telephone calls, PLDT’s telecommunication services, or PLDT’s business of providing such services are “personal property” subject to theft under Article 308 RPC; and (3) whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash the Amended Information.

Proper Remedy: Certiorari vs. Appeal

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the general rule that an order denying a motion to quash is ordinarily reviewed by appeal after final judgment. However, extraordinary certiorari under Rule 65 is available when the trial court’s order is issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack/excess of jurisdiction, where appeal is inadequate, where the order is a patent nullity, or when public welfare/public policy considerations warrant. The Court found that the Amended Information, on its face, failed to allege facts that constituted the offense of theft under Art. 308; thus the RTC order denying the motion to quash was a patent nullity and certiorari was appropriate.

Legal Standard for Theft under Article 308 RPC

Article 308 defines theft as the taking of the personal property of another with intent to gain, without violence, intimidation, or force on things. The essential elements of simple theft are: (a) taking of personal property; (b) that the property belongs to another; (c) intent to gain; and (d) absence of violence/intimidation or force. Penal statutes must be strictly construed; ambiguity in criminal statutes must be resolved in favor of the accused (rule of lenity). Congress — not the judiciary — defines crimes, and courts should not expand criminal statutes by implication beyond the statute’s clear language and legislative purpose.

Nature and Limits of “Personal Property” Under the Penal Code

The Court examined jurisprudential and doctrinal definitions: while “personal property” may include tangible and some intangible items, Article 308 must be read in light of the word “take.” Traditionally, only movable things with physical/material existence susceptible of being taken and carried away (or at least of being subject to constructive asportation/possession) are proper objects of theft. Rights, ideas, intangible interests, and mere business interests or revenues are generally not subjects of theft because they cannot be physically “taken” or occupied; they are juridical or incorporeal in nature. Precedent has recognized exceptions for certain intangible commodities that can be appropriated and severed from a mass and transported—most notably electrical energy and gas—which courts have treated as capable of being stolen.

Application to Telephone Calls, Telecommunication Services, and Business

Applying the legal standard, the Court concluded that international telephone calls, the electronic voice signals they generate, PLDT’s provision of telecommunication “services,” and PLDT’s business or revenues are not proper subjects of theft under Article 308. Key points of the Court’s analysis:

  • The Revised Penal Code (1930) did not contemplate modern telecommunications or the transmission/routing of electronic voice impulses; penal provisions must not be extended by judicial construction to cover novel technological means absent clear statutory language.
  • PLDT does not acquire ownership or possessory control of the human voice or of the electronic impulses produced by calls; PLDT’s role is transmission and facilitation. Those intangible signals and the callers’ communications are not “things” susceptible of physical appropriation of the kind envisaged by Article 308.
  • The Court distinguished telecommunication services and business from electrical energy or gas: although energy can be physically appropriated and transported and thus treated as theft in established jurisprudence, services and business interests lack the requisite physical or material characteristics to be “taken” in the Art. 308 sense.
  • Because the Amended Information specifically charged “stealing the international long distance calls belonging to PLDT,” rather than alleg

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms