G.R. No. 217866 - Social Security System vs. Simacas

Case Summary (G.R. No. 217866)

Petitioner

Laurel moved to quash the Amended Information on the ground that its factual allegations do not constitute the felony of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). He also sought to defer arraignment pending resolution of the motion.

Respondents

PLDT asserted that the Amended Information was sufficient, contending that international calls and the business/service of providing telecommunication are personal properties capable of appropriation and therefore subject to theft liability. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) supported PLDT’s position. The trial court denied the motion to quash; the Court of Appeals dismissed the special civil action; the Supreme Court First Division initially granted the petition; PLDT filed a motion for reconsideration which was referred to the Court en banc.

Key Dates

Alleged commission of offense: on or about September 10–19, 1999.
Supreme Court decision (en banc) context: the case was considered under the 1987 Philippine Constitution as the decision date is after 1990.

Applicable Law and Authorities

1987 Philippine Constitution — due process guarantees requiring the accused be fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
Article 308, Revised Penal Code — elements of theft.
Civil Code provisions and related jurisprudence cited in the opinion (including the Civil Code’s distinction between real and personal property; Articles cited in the opinion include the conceptual bases from the Civil Code and Spanish Civil Code provision analogs).
Precedent: United States v. Genato, United States v. Carlos, United States v. Tambunting, Natividad v. Court of Appeals, Strochecker v. Ramirez, and other cases cited by the Court that recognize intangible and incorporeal things capable of appropriation (as referenced in the decision).
Relevant special laws referenced by the parties: Republic Act No. 8484 (Access Device Regulation Act of 1998) and Republic Act No. 8792 (Electronic Commerce Act of 2000).
Procedural provisions mentioned: Rule 110, Section 14 and Rule 119, Section 19 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (regarding dismissal for improper charging).

Procedural Posture

Trial court denied Laurel’s Motion to Quash the Amended Information and denied reconsideration.
Court of Appeals dismissed the special civil action.
First Division of the Supreme Court (February 27, 2006) initially granted the petition and ordered the RTC to quash the Amended Information.
PLDT moved for reconsideration and requested en banc resolution due to the novel legal issues. The en banc Court granted the motion for reconsideration, reconsidered and set aside the First Division decision, affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the trial court’s denial of the Motion to Quash, but remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to amend the Amended Information to correctly describe the property alleged to have been taken.

Issues Presented

Whether international long distance calls and the business or service of providing telecommunication are “personal property” within the meaning of Article 308, RPC, and thus susceptible of theft.
Whether the Amended Information sufficiently described the property allegedly stolen so as to satisfy due process and inform the accused of the nature and cause of the charge.
Whether asportation is required for theft under Article 308, RPC.
Whether prosecution under special statutes (RA 8484, RA 8792) precludes prosecution under the RPC for theft.

Elements of Theft and Statutory Interpretation

The Court restated the elements of theft under Article 308: (1) taking of personal property; (2) property belongs to another; (3) intent to gain; (4) taking without consent; and (5) without violence/intimidation or force upon things.
The Court applied the established rule of statutory construction that terms long used in a technical sense and judicially construed prior to enactment of a statute should be given their established meaning. It relied on preexisting jurisprudential definitions and the Civil Code conception of “personal property” as encompassing anything susceptible of appropriation not included among real properties.
The Court reaffirmed prior decisions that intangible, incorporeal, or non-transportable items may be “personal property” for theft purposes provided they are capable of appropriation; asportation or carrying away is not required.

Ownership and Appropriation of Telephone Calls versus Telecommunication Service and Business

The Court analyzed the distinction between the telephone call (electrical impulses representing human voice) and the telecommunication service and business that enable transmission. While electricity and other “forces of nature” brought under control by science have been treated as personal property in prior jurisprudence, the Court concluded that PLDT did not thereby acquire ownership of the telephone calls themselves. PLDT’s role is to encode, augment, transmit, decode and facilitate the call using its network; it does not own the conversational content or the originating “call” as a proprietary item.
The Court held, however, that PLDT’s business and the telecommunication service it provides are personal property susceptible of appropriation. The Court cited precedent and statutory analogies (e.g., recognition that interests in or rights to conduct a business can be classified as personal property) to support that business and services may be objects of theft when capable of appropriation and not enumerated as real property.

Application to ISR Conduct and “Subtraction”

ISR conduct — unauthorized routing, resale or completion of international long distance calls using PLDT’s network — was found to constitute the unlawful use of PLDT’s facilities and business/service. The Court characterized such ISR activities as acts of “subtraction” (analogous to tampering, tapping, or diverting electrical current or telecommunication service) that prior cases had deemed punishable under theft provisions. Examples included tampering with meters, use of devices to fraudulently obtain gas or electricity, and use of jumpers to divert electricity.
The Court concluded that the essence of the wrongdoing in the instant case was the unlawful appropriation of PLDT’s service and business — the use of PLDT’s facilities and the diversion of revenue-generating service to the advantage of others.

Sufficiency and Form of the Amended Information; Constitutional Rights

Although the Court found that the charge of theft was the correct characterization of the offense in substance, it determined that the Amended Information was imprecise and could mislead by describing the thing taken as “international long distance calls” rather than as the “services and business” of PLDT. Because the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation is guaranteed under the Constitution (as interpreted in light of the 1987 Constitution), the prosecution must state the property alleged to have been taken with sufficient clarity to apprise the accused and permit a fair defense.
Consequently, the Court ordered remand to the trial court and directed the Public Prosecutor to amend the Amended Information to allege that the property subject of theft were the services and business of PLDT.

Relation to Special Laws

The Court noted arguments that prosecution under special laws such as RA 8484 and RA 8792 does not preclude prosecution under the RPC for theft, as the RPC may address the unauthorized appropriation or use of PLDT’s service and business while special laws address particular technical means. The en banc decision did not find that prosecution under special laws necessarily precluded theft charges under the RPC and proceeded on the

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 217866)

Case Caption and Decisional Posture

Case reported at 596 Phil. 45, decided en banc; G.R. No. 155076, January 13, 2009.
Petition by Luis Marcos P. Laurel (petitioner) for review of orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City, Branch 150, and of the Court of Appeals decision (CA-G.R. SP No. 68841) dismissing his special civil action for certiorari.
The Supreme Court’s First Division initially rendered judgment on February 27, 2006 granting the petition and directing the RTC to quash the Amended Information.
Respondent PLDT filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion to Refer the Case to the Supreme Court en banc, contending that the Amended Information was sufficient to charge theft and that international calls and the business of providing telecommunication services are personal properties subject to theft.
The Supreme Court en banc granted PLDT’s Motion for Reconsideration, reconsidered and set aside the February 27, 2006 Decision, affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision denying the Motion to Quash, and remanded the case to the trial court with specific directions to amend the Amended Information to state that the property subject of the theft were the services and business of PLDT.

Factual Background / Criminal Charge

Petitioner was one of the accused in Criminal Case No. 99-2425 before the RTC, Branch 150, Makati City.
The Amended Information alleged that on or about September 10–19, 1999, or prior thereto in Makati City, the accused, conspiring together and mutually aiding one another, with intent to gain and without PLDT’s knowledge or consent, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously took, stole and used international long distance calls belonging to PLDT by conducting International Simple Resale (ISR).
ISR was described in the Amended Information as routing and completing international long distance calls using lines, cables, antennae, and/or air wave frequency connecting directly to the local or domestic exchange facilities of the destination country, thereby “stealing this business from PLDT” and using PLDT’s facilities in the estimated amount of P20,370,651.92 to the damage and prejudice of PLDT.
The Amended Information thus phrased the alleged thing taken as “international long distance calls” and alleged that the accused derived gain by “stealing the business from PLDT.”

Procedural Moves by Petitioner

Petitioner filed a “Motion to Quash (with Motion to Defer Arraignment),” arguing that the factual allegations in the Amended Information did not constitute the felony of theft.
The RTC denied the Motion to Quash and petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s special civil action for certiorari.
Petitioner then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.

Arguments of Respondent PLDT and Solicitor General

PLDT argued that the Amended Information was valid and sufficient, stating the names of accused, identifying the international calls and business as the personal properties unlawfully taken, and satisfying sufficiency tests for notice and for rendering judgment.
PLDT urged that the term “personal property” in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code should be interpreted in light of the Civil Code’s definition and that the Civil Code’s enumeration of real property is exclusive, making other things personal property.
PLDT asserted that international calls and the business of providing telecommunication services are personal properties capable of appropriation and thus can be objects of theft.
PLDT contended that “taking” in theft does not require asportation; rather, the object must be capable of appropriation and the taking includes depriving the owner of possession/dominion with intent to appropriate.
PLDT maintained that telephone calls are electric currents or impulses (electrical energy) and cited Article 416(3) of the Civil Code (forces of nature brought under control by science, including electricity) to support that such forces are personal property.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), supporting PLDT, argued that intangible properties like gas and electricity have been recognized as personal properties in Philippine jurisprudence and that prosecution under special statutes (RA 8484, RA 8792) does not preclude prosecution for theft under the Revised Penal Code.

Petitioner’s Position on Nature of the Thing Alleged to Be Stolen

Petitioner (Laurel) asserted that a telephone call is a conversation or communication, not synonymous with electric current or impulses, and thus not a personal property susceptible of appropriation.
Petitioner argued that PLDT does not generate telephone calls but merely provides facilities for transmission and switching, and that “business” is not personal property in the sense argued by PLDT; rather, the right to carry on a business is the property interest.
Petitioner claimed the analogy between generated electricity and telephone calls was misplaced.

Legal Framework: Statutory Provisions and Elements of Theft

Article 308, Revised Penal Code: “Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against, or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent.”
The elements of theft under Article 308 as set out in the decision: (1) taking of personal property; (2) property belongs to another; (3) taking done with intent to gain; (4) taking without owner’s consent; (5) taking without violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.
The Court reiterated settled jurisprudence that “personal property” in the penal code should be interpreted in the context of civil law definitions an