Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Laurel v.

Abrogar

Facts:

PLDT is holder of a legislative franchise to render local and international telecommunication services
under Republic Act No. 7082.2 Under said law, PLDT is authorized to establish, operate, manage, lease,
maintain and purchase telecommunication systems, including transmitting, receiving and switching
stations, for both domestic and international calls. According to PLDT, Baynet Co are conducting Internet
Simple Resale activities which is a method of routing and completing international long distance calls
using lines, cables, antennae, and/or air wave frequency which connect directly to the local or
domestic exchange facilities of the country where the call is destined, effectively stealing this
business from PLDT while using its facilities in the estimated amount of 20.3 M pesos to the damage
and prejudice of PLDT. Upon complaint of PLDT and on the strength of a search warrant, the
premises of Baynet Co where searched and the accused were arrested by NBI agents while in the act
of manning the operations of Baynet. The latter were charged with theft under Article 308 in the
RTC.

TRIAL COURT
In defense, the accused said
1. RPC or any Special does not prohibit ISR operations.
2. Telephone calls with the use of PLDT’s facilities belong to the persons making the call not PLDT
3. The 20.3M pesos represents the rental for the use of the facilities and not the value of anything
owned by PLDT.

RTC ruled that although there is no law that expressly prohibits the use of ISR, the facts alleged in
the Amended Information "will show how the alleged crime was committed by conducting ISR," to
the damage and prejudice of PLDT.

MOTION FOR RECON


On the motion for recon the movant, alleged that international long distance calls are not personal
property, and are not capable of appropriation. He maintained that business or revenue is not
considered personal property, and that the prosecution failed to adduce proof of its existence and
the subsequent loss of personal property belonging to another.

The RTC ruled that what was stolen from PLDT was its "business" because, as alleged in the
Amended Information, the international long distance calls made through the facilities of PLDT
formed part of its business.

APPELLATE COURT
Accused said "business" or its revenues cannot be considered as personal property under Article
308 of the Revised Penal Code, since a "business" is "
(1) a commercial or mercantile activity customarily engaged in as a means of livelihood and typically
involving some independence of judgment and power of decision;
(2) a commercial or industrial enterprise; and
(3) refers to transactions, dealings or intercourse of any nature."
On the other hand, the term "revenue" is defined as "the income that comes back from an
investment (as in real or personal property); the annual or periodical rents, profits, interests, or
issues of any species of real or personal property."

CA ruled that business is generally an activity which is abstract and intangible in form, it is
nevertheless considered "property" under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. The CA opined
that PLDT’s business of providing international calls is personal property which may be the object of
theft

ISSUE:
Whether or not international telephone calls using Bay Super Orient Cards through the
telecommunication services provided by PLDT for such calls, or, in short, PLDT’s business of
providing said telecommunication services, are proper subjects of theft under Article 308 of the
Revised Penal Code

HELD:

The international telephone calls placed by Bay Super Orient Card holders, the telecommunication
services provided by PLDT and its business of providing said services are not personal properties.
The Construction of the accused is contrary to the letter and intent of the law which should be
construed strictly and founded on the tenderness on the rights of the accused.

An information or complaint for simple theft must allege the following elements: (a) the taking of
personal property; (b) the said property belongs to another; (c) the taking be done with intent to
gain; and (d) the taking be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation of person/s or
force upon things.

"Personal property" standing alone, covers both tangible and intangible properties and are subject
of theft under the Revised Penal Code. But the words "Personal property" under the Revised Penal
Code must be considered in tandem with the word "take" in the law.

The general rule is that, only movable properties which have physical or material existence and
susceptible of occupation by another are proper objects of thef. Only those movable properties
which can be taken and carried from the place they are found are proper subjects of thef. Clearly,
not all personal properties may be the proper subjects of theft. Intangible properties such as rights
and ideas are not subject of theft because the same cannot be "taken" from the place it is found and
is occupied or appropriated.

In other words, though intangible properties such as gas and electricity are proper subjects of theft
because the same can be appropriated hence it is a valuable article of merchandise, bought and
sold like other personal property, susceptible of being severed from a mass or larger quantity and of
being transported from place to place, business or services provided by business entrepreneurs on
the other hand, though properties, are without form or substance such that it cannot be taken or
occupied.
International telephone calls on the other hand, SC says that Respondent PLDT does not acquire
possession, much less, ownership of the voices of the telephone callers or of the electronic voice
signals or current emanating from said calls. The human voice and the electronic voice signals or
current caused thereby are intangible and not susceptible of possession, occupation or
appropriation by the respondent PLDT or even the petitioner, for that matter. PLDT merely transmits
the electronic voice signals through its facilities and equipment. Baynet Card Ltd., through its
operator, merely intercepts, reroutes the calls and passes them to its toll center.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen