Laurel v Abrogar (full text)

8/10/2019 Laurel v Abrogar (full text)

1/33

Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Carpio, Chico-Nazario ** andLeonardo-De Castro, JJ. , concur.

Petition granted, judgment and amended judgmentreversed and set aside.

Note .Technicality and procedural imperfection shouldnever be used to defeat the substantive rights of the otherparty. (Composite Enterprises, Inc. vs. Caparoso , 529 SCRA 470 [2007])

o0o

G.R. No. 155076. January 13, 2009. *

LUIS MARCOS P. LAUREL, petitioner, vs. HON. ZEUS C. ABROGAR, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court,Makati City, Branch 150, PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES & PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCETELEPHONE COMPANY, respondents.

Criminal Law; Theft; Elements of theft. The elements of

theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code are as follows:(1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that saidproperty belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done withintent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without theuse of violence against or intimidation of persons or force uponthings.

Same; Same; Property; The only requirement for a personal property to be the object of theft under the Penal Code is that it becapable of appropriation. The only requirement for a personalproperty to be the object of theft under the penal code is that it becapable of appropriation. It need not be capable of asportation,which is defined as carrying away. Jurisprudence is settled thatto take under the theft provision of the penal code does notrequire asportation or carrying away. To appropriate means to


2/33


3/33


4/33

intangible property such as electrical energy is capable of appropriation because it may be taken and carried away.Electricity is personal property under Article 416 (3) of the CivilCode, which enumerates forces of nature which are broughtunder control by science.

Same; Same; Telecommunication Industry; It is the use of these telecommunications facilities without the consent of

Philippine Long Distance Telephone (PLDT) that constitutes thecrime of theft, which is the unlawful taking of the telephoneservices and business. While it may be conceded thatinternational long distance calls, the matter alleged to be stolenin the instant case, take the form of electrical energy, it cannot besaid that such international long distance calls were personalproperties belonging to PLDT since the latter could not haveacquired ownership over such calls. PLDT merely encodes,augments, enhances, decodes and transmits said calls using itscomplex communications infrastructure and facilities. PLDT notbeing the owner of said telephone calls, then it could not validlyclaim that such telephone calls were taken without its consent. Itis the use of these communications facilities without the consentof PLDT that constitutes the crime of theft, which is the unlawfultaking of the telephone services and business.

Same; Same; Same; The business of providing telecommunicationand the telephone service are personal property under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and the act of engaging inInternational Simple Resale (ISR) is an act of subtraction

penalized under said article. The business of providingtelecommunication and the telephone service are personalproperty under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, and the actof engaging in ISR

44

44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Laurel vs. Abrogar

is an act of subtraction penalized under said article. However,the Amended Information describes the thing taken as,international long distance calls, and only later mentionsstealing the business from PLDT as the manner by which thegain was derived by the accused. In order to correct thisinaccuracy of description, this case must be remanded to the trialcourt and the prosecution directed to amend the AmendedInformation, to clearly state that the property subject of the theft


5/33

are the services and business of respondent PLDT.Parenthetically, this amendment is not necessitated by a mistakein charging the proper offense, which would have called for thedismissal of the information under Rule 110, Section 14 and Rule119, Section 19 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. To besure, the crime is properly designated as one of theft. The purposeof the amendment is simply to ensure that the accused is fully

and sufficiently apprised of the nature and cause of the chargeagainst him, and thus guaranteed of his rights under theConstitution.

CORONA, J., Separate Opinion :

Civil Law; Property; Telecommunication Industry; Whiletelephone calls take the form of electrical energy, it cannot be saidthat such telephone calls were personal properties belonging to

Philippine Long Distance Telephone (PLDT) since the latter couldnot have acquired ownership over such calls. The question of

whether PLDT creates the phone calls or merely encodes andtransmits them is a question of fact that can be answered byscience. I agree with Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago that,while telephone calls take the form of electrical energy, it cannotbe said that such [telephone] calls were personal propertiesbelonging to PLDT since the latter could not have acquiredownership over such calls. PLDT merely encodes, augments,enhances, decodes and transmits said calls using its complexinfrastructure and facilites.

TINGA, J., Concurring Opinion :Civil Law; Telecommunication Industry; Criminal Law; Theft;The coursing of long distance calls through International SimpleResale (ISR) is not per se illegal. The coursing of long distancecalls through ISR is not per se illegal. For example, the FederalCommunications Commission of the United States is authorizedby statute to approve long-distance calling through ISR for callsmade to certain countries, as it has done so with nations such as

Australia, France and Japan. However, as indicated by the Officeof

45

VOL. 576, JANUARY 13, 2009 45

Laurel vs. Abrogar

the Solicitor Generals support for the subject prosecution, therewas no authority yet for the practice during the time of the


6/33

subject incidents.

Criminal Law; Theft; The crime of theft is penalized under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The crime of theftis penalized under Article 308 of the RPC. From that provision,we have long recognized the following as the elements of theft: (1)that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said propertybelongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain;

(4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and(5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violenceagainst or intimidation of persons or force upon things.

Electricity; While electricity is merely the medium throughwhich the telephone calls are carried, it is sufficiently analogous toallow the courts to consider such calls as possessing similar

physical characteristics as electricity. Are international longdistance calls personal property? The assailed Decision did notbelieve so, but I agree with the present Resolution that they are.

The Court now equates telephone calls to electrical energy. To beclear, telephone calls are not exactly alike as pure electricity.They are sound waves (created by the human voice) which arecarried by electrical currents to the recipient on the other line.While electricity is merely the medium through which thetelephone calls are carried, it is sufficiently analogous to allow thecourts to consider such calls as possessing similar physicalcharacteristics as electricity.

Same; Property; Telecommunication Industry; Theft; Since

physically a telephone call is in the form of an electric signal, our jurisprudence acknowledging that electricity is personal propertywhich may be stolen through theft is applicable. The assailedDecision conceded that when a telephone call was made, thehuman voice [is] converted into electronic impulses or electricalcurrent. As the Resolution now correctly points out, electricity orelectronic energy may be the subject of theft, as it is personalproperty capable of appropriation. Since physically a telephonecall is in the form of an electric signal, our jurisprudenceacknowledging that electricity is personal property which may be

stolen through theft is applicable.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Just because the phone calls aretransmitted using the facilities and services of Philippine Long

Distance Telephone (PLDT), it does not follow that PLDT is theowner of such calls. The legal paradigm that treats PLDT asakin to a common carrier should alert against any notion that it isthe owner of the long distance overseas calls alleged as havingbeen stolen in the Amended Information. More precisely, itmerely


7/33

46


Laurel vs. Abrogar

transmits these calls, owned by another, to the intended recipient. Applying the common carrier paradigm, when a public transportsystem is contracted to transport goods or persons to adestination, the transport company does not acquire ownershipover such goods or such persons, even though it is in custody of the same for the duration of the trip. Just because the phone callsare transmitted using the facilities and services of PLDT, it doesnot follow that PLDT is the owner of such calls.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of a decision of the

Supreme Court. The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court. Salonga, Hernandez & Mendoza for petitioner. Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala and Cruz and

Kapunan, Tamano, Villodolid & Associates for respondentPLDT.

R E S O L U T I O N

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. :

On February 27, 2006, this Courts First Divisionrendered judgment in this case as follows:

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING , the petition isGRANTED. The assailed Orders of the Regional Trial Court andthe Decision of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET

ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court is directed to issue an ordergranting the motion of the petitioner to quash the AmendedInformation.

SO ORDERED. 1

By way of brief background, petitioner is one of theaccused in Criminal Case No. 99-2425, filed with theRegional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 150. The

Amended Information charged the accused with theftunder Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, committed asfollows:

On or about September 10-19, 1999, or prior thereto in MakatiCity, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the


8/33

accused, conspiring

_______________

1 Rollo , p. 728.

47

VOL. 576, JANUARY 13, 2009 47

Laurel vs. Abrogar

and confederating together and all of them mutually helping andaiding one another, with intent to gain and without theknowledge and consent of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone(PLDT), did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniouslytake, steal and use the international long distance calls belongingto PLDT by conducting International Simple Resale (ISR), which

is a method of routing and completing international long distancecalls using lines, cables, antenae, and/or air wave frequency whichconnect directly to the local or domestic exchange facilities of thecountry where the call is destined, effectively stealing thisbusiness from PLDT while using its facilities in the estimatedamount of P20,370,651.92 to the damage and prejudice of PLDT,in the said amount.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 2

Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash (with Motion toDefer Arraignment), on the ground that the factualallegations in the Amended Information do not constitutethe felony of theft. The trial court denied the Motion toQuash the Amended Information, as well as petitionerssubsequent Motion for Reconsideration.

Petitioners special civil action for certiorari wasdismissed by the Court of Appeals. Thus, petitioner filedthe instant petition for review with this Court.

In the above-quoted Decision, this Court held that the

Amended Information does not contain material allegationscharging petitioner with theft of personal property sinceinternational long distance calls and the business of providing telecommunication or telephone services are notpersonal properties under Article 308 of the Revised PenalCode.

Respondent Philippine Long Distance TelephoneCompany (PLDT) filed a Motion for Reconsideration withMotion to Refer the Case to the Supreme Court En Banc . Itmaintains that the Amended Information charging
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000148ead5b6e3ffee6c1e000a0082004500cc/p/AMM791/?username=Jeric#body_ftn3


9/33

petitioner with theft is valid and sufficient; that it statesthe names of all the accused who were specifically chargedwith the crime of theft of PLDTs international calls andbusiness of providing telecommunication or telephoneservice on or about September 10 to 19, 1999 in MakatiCity by conducting ISR or Interna-

_______________

2 Id. , at pp. 57-58.

48


Laurel vs. Abrogar

tional Simple Resale; that it identifies the internationalcalls and business of providing telecommunication ortelephone service of PLDT as the personal properties whichwere unlawfully taken by the accused; and that it satisfiesthe test of sufficiency as it enabled a person of commonunderstanding to know the charge against him and thecourt to render judgment properly.

PLDT further insists that the Revised Penal Codeshould be interpreted in the context of the Civil Codesdefinition of real and personal property. The enumerationof real properties in Article 415 of the Civil Code isexclusive such that all those not included therein arepersonal properties. Since Article 308 of the Revised PenalCode used the words personal property withoutqualification, it follows that all personal properties asunderstood in the context of the Civil Code, may be thesubject of theft under Article 308 of the Revised PenalCode. PLDT alleges that the international calls andbusiness of providing telecommunication or telephone

service are personal properties capable of appropriationand can be objects of theft.PLDT also argues that taking in relation to theft

under the Revised Penal Code does not requireasportation, the sole requisite being that the objectshould be capable of appropriation. The element of taking referred to in Article 308 of the Revised PenalCode means the act of depriving another of the possessionand dominion of a movable coupled with the intention, atthe time of the taking, of withholding it with the


10/33

character of permanency. There must be intent toappropriate, which means to deprive the lawful owner of the thing. Thus, the term personal properties under

Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code is not limited to onlypersonal properties which are susceptible of being severedfrom a mass or larger quantity and of being transportedfrom place to place.

PLDT likewise alleges that as early as the 1930s,international telephone calls were in existence; hence,there is no basis for this Courts finding that theLegislature could not have contemplated the theft of international telephone calls and the unlawfultransmission and routing of electronic voice signals orimpulses emanating from such calls by unlawfullytampering with the telephone device as within the coverageof the Revised Penal Code.

49

VOL. 576, JANUARY 13, 2009 49

Laurel vs. Abrogar

According to respondent, the international phone callswhich are electric currents or sets of electric impulsestransmitted through a medium, and carry a patternrepresenting the human voice to a receiver, are personalproperties which may be subject of theft. Article 416(3) of the Civil Code deems forces of nature (which includeselectricity) which are brought under the control by science,are personal property.

In his Comment to PLDTs motion for reconsideration,petitioner Laurel claims that a telephone call is aconversation on the phone or a communication carried outusing the telephone. It is not synonymous to electriccurrent or impulses. Hence, it may not be considered as

personal property susceptible of appropriation. Petitionerclaims that the analogy between generated electricity andtelephone calls is misplaced. PLDT does not produce orgenerate telephone calls. It only provides the facilities orservices for the transmission and switching of the calls. Healso insists that business is not personal property. It isnot the business that is protected but the right to carryon a business. This right is what is considered as property.Since the services of PLDT cannot be considered asproperty, the same may not be subject of theft.


11/33

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) agrees withrespondent PLDT that international phone calls and thebusiness or service of providing international phone callsare subsumed in the enumeration and definition of personal property under the Civil Code hence, may beproper subjects of theft. It noted that the cases of UnitedStates v. Genato ,3 United States v. Carlos 4 and United

States v. Tambunting ,5

which recognized intangibleproperties like gas and electricity as personal properties,are deemed incorporated in our penal laws. Moreover, thetheft provision in the Revised Penal Code was deliberatelycouched in broad terms precisely to be all-encompassingand embracing even such scenario that could not have beeneasily anticipated.

_______________

3 15 Phil. 170 (1910).4 21 Phil. 553 (1911).

5 41 Phil. 364 (1921).

50


Laurel vs. Abrogar

According to the OSG, prosecution under Republic Act(RA) No. 8484 or the Access Device Regulations Act of 1998 and RA 8792 or the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 doesnot preclude prosecution under the Revised Penal Code forthe crime of theft. The latter embraces unauthorizedappropriation or use of PLDTs international calls, serviceand business, for personal profit or gain, to the prejudice of PLDT as owner thereof. On the other hand, the speciallaws punish the surreptitious and advanced technical

means employed to illegally obtain the subject service andbusiness. Even assuming that the correct indictmentshould have been under RA 8484, the quashal of theinformation would still not be proper. The charge of theftas alleged in the Information should be taken in relation toRA 8484 because it is the elements, and not the designationof the crime, that control.

Considering the gravity and complexity of the novelquestions of law involved in this case, the Special FirstDivision resolved to refer the same to the Banc.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000148ead5b6e3ffee6c1e000a0082004500cc/p/AMM791/?username=Jeric#body_ftn7http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000148ead5b6e3ffee6c1e000a0082004500cc/p/AMM791/?username=Jeric#body_ftn6http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000148ead5b6e3ffee6c1e000a0082004500cc/p/AMM791/?username=Jeric#body_ftn5


12/33

We resolve to grant the Motion for Reconsideration butremand the case to the trial court for proper clarification of the Amended Information.

Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Art. 308. Who are liable for theft. Theft is committed byany person who, with intent to gain but without violence against,or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall takepersonal property of another without the latters consent.

The elements of theft under Article 308 of the RevisedPenal Code are as follows: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs toanother; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4)that the taking be done without the consent of the owner;and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon

things.Prior to the passage of the Revised Penal Code onDecember 8, 1930, the definition of the term personalproperty in the penal code provision on theft had beenestablished in Philippine jurisprudence. This Court, inUnited States v. Genato , United States v. Carlos , andUnited States v. Tambunting , consistently ruled that anypersonal

51

VOL. 576, JANUARY 13, 2009 51

Laurel vs. Abrogar

property, tangible or intangible, corporeal or incorporeal,capable of appropriation can be the object of theft.

Moreover, since the passage of the Revised Penal Codeon December 8, 1930, the term personal property has hada generally accepted definition in civil law. In Article 335 of the Civil Code of Spain, personal property is defined asanything susceptible of appropriation and not included inthe foregoing chapter (not real property) . Thus, the termpersonal property in the Revised Penal Code should beinterpreted in the context of the Civil Code provisions inaccordance with the rule on statutory construction thatwhere words have been long used in a technical sense andhave been judicially construed to have a certain meaning,and have been adopted by the legislature as having a


13/33

certain meaning prior to a particular statute, in which theyare used, the words used in such statute should beconstrued according to the sense in which they have beenpreviously used. 6 In fact, this Court used the Civil Codedefinition of personal property in interpreting the theftprovision of the penal code in United States v. Carlos.

Cognizant of the definition given by jurisprudence and

the Civil Code of Spain to the term personal property atthe time the old Penal Code was being revised, still thelegislature did not limit or qualify the definition of personal property in the Revised Penal Code. Neither didit provide a restrictive definition or an exclusiveenumeration of personal property in the Revised PenalCode, thereby showing its intent to retain for the term anextensive and unqualified interpretation. Consequently,any property which is not included in the enumeration of real properties under the Civil Code and capable of appropriation can be the subject of theft under the RevisedPenal Code.

The only requirement for a personal property to be theobject of theft under the Penal Code is that it be capable of appropriation. It need not be capable of asportation,which is defined as carrying

_______________

6 Krivenko v. Register of Deeds , 79 Phil. 461 (1947).

52


Laurel vs. Abrogar

away. 7 Jurisprudence is settled that to take under thetheft provision of the penal code does not require

asportation or carrying away.8

To appropriate means to deprive the lawful owner of thething. 9 The word take in the Revised Penal Code includesany act intended to transfer possession which, as held inthe assailed Decision, may be committed through the use of the offenders own hands, as well as any mechanical device,such as an access device or card as in the instant case. Thisincludes controlling the destination of the property stolento deprive the owner of the property, such as the use of ameter tampering, as held in Natividad v. Court of


14/33

Appeals ,10 use of a device to fraudulently obtain gas, asheld in United States v. Tambunting , and the use of a

jumper to divert electricity, as held in the cases of UnitedStates v. Genato , United States v. Carlos , and United Statesv. Menagas. 11

As illustrated in the above cases, appropriation of forcesof nature which are brought under control by science such

as electrical energy can be achieved by tampering with anyapparatus used for generating or measuring such forces of nature, wrongfully redirecting such forces of nature fromsuch apparatus, or using any device to fraudulently obtainsuch forces of nature. In the instant case, petitioner wascharged with engaging in International Simple Resale(ISR) or the unauthorized routing and completing of international long distance calls using lines, cables,antennae, and/or air wave frequency and connecting thesecalls directly to the local or domestic exchange facilities of the country where destined.

As early as 1910, the Court declared in Genato thatownership over electricity (which an international longdistance call consists of), as well as telephone service , isprotected by the provisions on theft of the Penal Code. Thepertinent provision of the Revised Ordinance of the City of Manila, which was involved in the said case, reads asfollows:

_______________

7 People v. Mercado , 65 Phil. 665 (1938).8 Id.; Duran v. Tan , 85 Phil. 476 (1950).9 Regalado, Criminal Law Conspectus (2000 ed.), p. 520.10 G.R. No. L-14887, January 31, 1961, 1 SCRA 380.

11 11 N.E. 2d 403 (1937).

53

VOL. 576, JANUARY 13, 2009 53

Laurel vs. Abrogar

Injury to electric apparatus; Tapping current; Evidence. Noperson shall destroy, mutilate, deface, or otherwise injure ortamper with any wire, meter, or other apparatus installed or usedfor generating, containing, conducting, or measuring electricity,telegraph or telephone service, nor tap or otherwise wrongfullydeflect or take any electric current from such wire, meter, or other
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000148ead5b6e3ffee6c1e000a0082004500cc/p/AMM791/?username=Jeric#body_ftn13http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000148ead5b6e3ffee6c1e000a0082004500cc/p/AMM791/?username=Jeric#body_ftn12http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000148ead5b6e3ffee6c1e000a0082004500cc/p/AMM791/?username=Jeric#body_ftn11http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000148ead5b6e3ffee6c1e000a0082004500cc/p/AMM791/?username=Jeric#body_ftn10http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000148ead5b6e3ffee6c1e000a0082004500cc/p/AMM791/?username=Jeric#body_ftn9


15/33

apparatus.No person shall, for any purpose whatsoever, use or enjoy the

benefits of any device by means of which he may fraudulentlyobtain any current of electricity or any telegraph or telephoneservice; and the existence in any building premises of any suchdevice shall, in the absence of satisfactory explanation, be deemedsufficient evidence of such use by the persons benefiting thereby.

It was further ruled that even without the aboveordinance the acts of subtraction punished therein arecovered by the provisions on theft of the Penal Code then inforce, thus:

Even without them (ordinance), the right of the ownership of electric current is secured by Articles 517 and 518 of the PenalCode; the application of these articles in cases of subtraction of gas, a fluid used for lighting, and in some respects resemblingelectricity, is confirmed by the rule laid down in the decisions of the supreme court of Spain of January 20, 1887, and April 1,1897, construing and enforcing the provisions of Articles 530 and531 of the Penal Code of that country, Articles 517 and 518 of thecode in force in these islands.

The acts of subtraction include: (a) tampering with anywire, meter, or other apparatus installed or used forgenerating, containing, conducting, or measuringelectricity, telegraph or telephone service; (b) tapping or

otherwise wrongfully deflecting or taking any electriccurrent from such wire, meter, or other apparatus; and (c)using or enjoying the benefits of any device by means of which one may fraudulently obtain any current of electricity or any telegraph or telephone service.

In the instant case, the act of conducting ISR operationsby illegally connecting various equipment or apparatus toprivate respondent PLDTs telephone system, throughwhich petitioner is able to resell or re-route internationallong distance calls using respondent PLDTs facilitiesconstitutes all three acts of subtraction mentioned above.

54


Laurel vs. Abrogar

The business of providing telecommunication ortelephone service is likewise personal property which can


16/33

be the object of theft under Article 308 of the Revised PenalCode. Business may be appropriated under Section 2 of ActNo. 3952 (Bulk Sales Law), hence, could be object of theft:

Section 2. Any sale, transfer, mortgage, or assignment of astock of goods, wares, merchandise, provisions, or materialsotherwise than in the ordinary course of trade and the regularprosecution of the business of the vendor, mortgagor, transferor,or assignor, or any sale, transfer, mortgage, or assignment of all,or substantially all, of the business or trade theretofore conductedby the vendor, mortgagor, transferor or assignor, or all, orsubstantially all, of the fixtures and equipment used in and aboutthe business of the vendor, mortgagor, transferor, or assignor,shall be deemed to be a sale and transfer in bulk, incontemplation of the Act. x x x.

In Strochecker v. Ramirez ,12 this Court stated:

With regard to the nature of the property thus mortgaged,which is one-half interest in the business above described, suchinterest is a personal property capable of appropriation and notincluded in the enumeration of real properties in Article 335 of the Civil Code, and may be the subject of mortgage.

Interest in business was not specifically enumerated aspersonal property in the Civil Code in force at the time theabove decision was rendered. Yet, interest in business wasdeclared to be personal property since it is capable of appropriation and not included in the enumeration of realproperties. Article 414 of the Civil Code provides that allthings which are or may be the object of appropriation areconsidered either real property or personal property.Business is likewise not enumerated as personal propertyunder the Civil Code. Just like interest in business,however, it may be appropriated. Following the ruling inStrochecker v. Ramirez , business should also be classifiedas personal property. Since it is not included in the

exclusive enumera-

_______________

12 44 Phil. 933 (1922).

55

VOL. 576, JANUARY 13, 2009 55


17/33

Laurel vs. Abrogar

tion of real properties under Article 415, it is thereforepersonal property. 13

As can be clearly gleaned from the above disquisitions,petitioners acts constitute theft of respondent PLDTsbusiness and service, committed by means of the unlawful

use of the latters facilities. In this regard, the AmendedInformation inaccurately describes the offense by making itappear that what petitioner took were the internationallong distance telephone calls, rather than respondentPLDTs business.

A perusal of the records of this case readily reveals thatpetitioner and respondent PLDT extensively discussed theissue of ownership of telephone calls. The prosecution hastaken the position that said telephone calls belong torespondent PLDT. This is evident from its Comment whereit defined the issue of this case as whether or not theunauthorized use or appropriation of PLDT internationaltelephone calls, service and facilities, for the purpose of generating personal profit or gain that should haveotherwise belonged to PLDT, constitutes theft. 14

In discussing the issue of ownership, petitioner andrespondent PLDT gave their respective explanations onhow a telephone call is generated. 15 For its part,respondent PLDT explains the process of generating a

telephone call as follows:38. The role of telecommunication companies is not limited tomerely providing the medium ( i.e. the electric current) throughwhich the human voice/voice signal of the caller is transmitted.Before the human voice/voice signal can be so transmitted, atelecommunication company, using its facilities, must first breakdown or decode the human voice/voice signal into electronicimpulses and subject the same to further augmentation andenhancements. Only after such process of conversion will the

resulting electronic impulses be transmitted by atelecommunication company, again, through the use of itsfacilities. Upon reaching the destination of the call, thetelecommunication company will again break down or decode theelectronic

_______________

13 II Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the

Philippines 26 (1992 ed.).


18/33

14 Rollo , p. 902.

15 Id. , at pp. 781-783; 832-837; 872, 874-877.

56


Laurel vs. Abrogar

impulses back to human voice/voice signal before the called partyreceives the same. In other words, a telecommunication companyboth converts/reconverts the human voice/voice signal andprovides the medium for transmitting the same.

39. Moreover, in the case of an international telephone call,once the electronic impulses originating from a foreigntelecommunication company country ( i.e. Japan) reaches thePhilippines through a local telecommunication company ( i.e.private respondent PLDT), it is the latter which decodes,augments and enhances the electronic impulses back to thehuman voice/voice signal and provides the medium ( i.e. electriccurrent) to enable the called party to receive the call. Thus, it isnot true that the foreign telecommunication company provides (1)the electric current which transmits the human voice/voice signalof the caller and (2) the electric current for the called party toreceive said human voice/voice signal.

40. Thus, contrary to petitioner Laurels assertion, once theelectronic impulses or electric current originating from a foreign

telecommunication company ( i.e. Japan) reaches privaterespondent PLDTs network, it is private respondent PLDT whichdecodes, augments and enhances the electronic impulses back tothe human voice/voice signal and provides the medium ( i.e.electric current) to enable the called party to receive the call.Without private respondent PLDTs network, the humanvoice/voice signal of the calling party will never reach the calledparty. 16

In the assailed Decision, it was conceded that in making

the international phone calls, the human voice is convertedinto electrical impulses or electric current which aretransmitted to the party called. A telephone call, therefore,is electrical energy. It was also held in the assailedDecision that intangible property such as electrical energyis capable of appropriation because it may be taken andcarried away. Electricity is personal property under Article416 (3) of the Civil Code, which enumerates forces of nature which are brought under control by science. 17

Indeed, while it may be conceded that international
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000148ead5b6e3ffee6c1e000a0082004500cc/p/AMM791/?username=Jeric#body_ftn17http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000148ead5b6e3ffee6c1e000a0082004500cc/p/AMM791/?username=Jeric#body_ftn16


19/33

long distance calls, the matter alleged to be stolen in theinstant case, take the form of electrical energy, it cannot besaid that such international long distance calls werepersonal properties belonging to PLDT since

_______________

16 Id. , at pp. 875-877.

17 Supra note 13.

57

VOL. 576, JANUARY 13, 2009 57

Laurel vs. Abrogar

the latter could not have acquired ownership over such

calls. PLDT merely encodes, augments, enhances, decodesand transmits said calls using its complex communicationsinfrastructure and facilities. PLDT not being the owner of said telephone calls, then it could not validly claim thatsuch telephone calls were taken without its consent. It isthe use of these communications facilities without theconsent of PLDT that constitutes the crime of theft, whichis the unlawful taking of the telephone services andbusiness.

Therefore, the business of providing telecommunicationand the telephone service are personal property under

Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, and the act of engaging in ISR is an act of subtraction penalized undersaid article. However, the Amended Information describesthe thing taken as, international long distance calls, andonly later mentions stealing the business from PLDT asthe manner by which the gain was derived by the accused.In order to correct this inaccuracy of description, this casemust be remanded to the trial court and the prosecution

directed to amend the Amended Information, to clearlystate that the property subject of the theft are the servicesand business of respondent PLDT. Parenthetically, thisamendment is not necessitated by a mistake in chargingthe proper offense, which would have called for thedismissal of the information under Rule 110, Section 14and Rule 119, Section 19 of the Revised Rules on CriminalProcedure. To be sure, the crime is properly designated asone of theft. The purpose of the amendment is simply toensure that the accused is fully and sufficiently apprised of


20/33

the nature and cause of the charge against him, and thusguaranteed of his rights under the Constitution.

ACCORDINGLY, the motion for reconsideration isGRANTED. The assailed Decision dated February 27, 2006is RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of theCourt of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 68841 affirming theOrder issued by Judge Zeus C. Abrogar of the Regional

Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 150, which denied theMotion to Quash (With Motion to Defer Arraignment) inCriminal Case No. 99-2425 for theft, is AFFIRMED. Thecase is remanded to the trial court and the PublicProsecutor of Makati City is hereby DIRECTED to amendthe Amended Information to show that the

58


Laurel vs. Abrogar

property subject of the theft were services and business of the private offended party.

SO ORDERED.

Puno (C.J.), Quisumbing, Carpio, Austria-Martinez,Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr.,Nachura, Leonardo-De Castro and Brion, JJ. , concur.

Corona, J. , See Separate Opinion.Tinga, J. , Please see Concurring Opinion.

SEPARATE OPINIONCORONA, J. :

The bone of contention in this case is: who owns thetelephone calls that we make? If respondent PhilippineLong Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) can claimownership over them, then petitioner Luis Marcos P.Laurel (Laurel) can be charged with theft of such telephonecalls under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. If PLDTdoes not own them, then the crime of theft was notcommitted and Laurel cannot be charged with this crime.

One view is that PLDT owns the telephone calls becauseit is responsible for creating such calls. The opposing viewis that it is the caller who owns the phone calls and PLDTmerely encodes and transmits them.

The question of whether PLDT creates the phone callsor merely encodes and transmits them is a question of


21/33

fact that can be answered by science. I agree with JusticeConsuelo Ynares-Santiago that, while telephone calls takethe form of electrical energy, it cannot be said that such[telephone] calls were personal properties belonging toPLDT since the latter could not have acquired ownershipover such calls. PLDT merely encodes, augments,enhances, decodes and transmits said calls using its

complex infrastructure and facilites.In my view, it is essential to differentiate between theconversation of a caller and recipient of the call, and thetelephone service that

59

VOL. 576, JANUARY 13, 2009 59

Laurel vs. Abrogar

made the call possible. Undoubtedly, any conversationbetween or among individuals is theirs alone. For example,if two children use two empty cans and a string as amakeshift play phone, they themselves create their phonecall. However, if individuals separated by long distancesuse the telephone and have a conversation through thetelephone lines of the PLDT, then the latter owns theservice which made possible the resulting call. Theconversation, however, remains protected by our privacylaws.

Accordingly, I vote to GRANT the motion forreconsideration.

CONCURRING OPINION

TINGA, J. :I do not have any substantive disagreements with the

ponencia. I write separately to flesh out one of the keyissues behind the Courts present dispositionwhether thePhilippine Long Distance Company (PLDT) can validlyclaim ownership over the telephone calls made using itstelephone services. As the subject Amended Informationhad alleged that petitioners had unlawfully andfeloniously take, steal and use the international long distance calls belonging to PLDT, said information couldhave been sustained only if its premise were accepted thatPLDT indeed owned those phone calls.


22/33

I.

It is best to begin with an overview of the facts thatprecede this case. Among many other services, PLDToperates an International Gateway Facility (IGF), 1 throughwhich pass phone calls originating from overseas to localPLDT phones. However, there exists a method of routingand completing international long distance calls calledInternational Simple Resale (ISR), which makes use of International Private Leased Lines (IPL). Because IPLlines may be linked to switching equipment connected to aPLDT phone line, it becomes

_______________

1 Other telecommunication companies authorized to operate an IGF

are Globe Telecommunications (Globe), Eastern Telecoms (ETPI), Digitel

Communications (Digitel) and Bayan Telecommunications Company(Bayantel).

60


Laurel vs. Abrogar

possible to make an overseas phone call to the Philippines

without having to pass through the IGF. 2Petitioner Laurel was, until November of 1999, the

Corporate Secretary of Baynet Co., Ltd. (Baynet), as well asa member of its Board of Directors. 3 Baynet was in thebusiness of selling phone cards to people who wished to callpeople in the Philippines. Each phone card, whichapparently was sold in Japan, contained an ISR telephonenumber and a PIN. For the caller to use the phone card, heor she would dial the ISR number indicated, and would beconnected to an ISR operator. The caller would then supplythe ISR operator with the PIN, and the operator wouldthen connect the caller with the recipient of the call in thePhilippines through the IPL lines. Because the IPL linesbypass the IGF, PLDT as operator of the IGF would haveno way of knowing that the long-distance call was beingmade. 4

Apparently, the coursing of long distance calls throughISR is not per se illegal. For example, the FederalCommunications Commission of the United States is


23/33

authorized by statute to approve long-distance callingthrough ISR for calls made to certain countries, as it hasdone so with nations such as Australia, France and Japan. 5

However, as indicated by the Office of the SolicitorGenerals support for the subject prosecution, there was noauthority yet for the practice during the time of the subjectincidents.

Taking issue with this scheme, PLDT filed a complaintagainst Baynet for network fraud. 6 A search warrantissued caused the seizure of various equipment used inBaynets operations. However, after the inquestinvestigation, the State Prosecutor, on 28 January 2000,issued a Resolution finding probable cause for theft under

Article 308 of the RPC and for violating PresidentialDecree No. 401, a law which criminalizes the installation of a telephone connection without the prior authority from thePLDT, or the tampering of its

_______________

2 Supra note 1 at p. 251.

3 Id ., at p. 255.

4 Id. , at p. 252.

5 See International Bureau International Simple Resale ,http://www.fcc.gov/ib/pd/pf/isr.html (Last visited, 6 September 2007).

6 Supra note 1, at p. 253.

61

VOL. 576, JANUARY 13, 2009 61

Laurel vs. Abrogar

lines. 7 However, when the Information was filed againstpetitioner with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makation 8 February 2000, the Information charged petitioner

only with theft under Article 308 of the RPC . Theaccusatory portion of the Amended Information reads asfollows:

On or about September 10-19, 1999, or prior thereto, inMakati City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,the accused, conspiring and confederating together and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent togain and without the knowledge and consent of the PhilippineLong Distance Telephone (PLDT), did then and there willfully,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000148ead5b6e3ffee6c1e000a0082004500cc/p/AMM791/?username=Jeric#body_ftn25http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000148ead5b6e3ffee6c1e000a0082004500cc/p/AMM791/?username=Jeric#body_ftn24http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000148ead5b6e3ffee6c1e000a0082004500cc/p/AMM791/?username=Jeric#body_ftn23http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000148ead5b6e3ffee6c1e000a0082004500cc/p/AMM791/?username=Jeric#body_ftn22http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000148ead5b6e3ffee6c1e000a0082004500cc/p/AMM791/?username=Jeric#body_ftn21


24/33

unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and use the internationallong distance calls belonging to PLDT by conducting InternationalSimple Resale (ISR), which is a method of routing and completinginternational long distance calls using lines, cables, antennae,and/or air wave frequency which connect directly to the local ordomestic exchange facilities of the country where the call isdestined, effectively stealing this business from PLDT while using

its facilities in the estimated amount of P20,370,651.92 to thedamage and prejudice of PLDT, in the said amount. 8

Prior to arraignment, petitioner filed a Motion to Quashon the ground that the factual allegations in the AmendedInformation do not constitute the felony of theft under

Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. He claimed, amongothers, that telephone calls with the use of PLDT telephonelines, whether domestic or international, belong to thepersons making the call, not to PLDT. The RTC denied the

Motion to Quash, and the Court of Appeals affirmed thedenial of the motion. However, in its Decision now soughtto be reconsidered the Court reversed the lower courts anddirected the quashal of the Amended Information.

II.

Preliminarily, it should be noted that among the myriadpossible crimes with which petitioner could have beencharged, he was charged with theft, as defined in the RPC

provision which has remained in its vestal 1930 form. Evenour earlier Decision now as-

_______________

7 Id. , at p. 254.

8 Id. , at p. 255. Emphasis not mine.

62


Laurel vs. Abrogar

sailed pointed out that petitioner could have been chargedinstead with estafa under the RPC, or with violation of the

Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998. 9 Moreover, itappears that PLDTs original complaint was for networkfraud, and that the State Prosecutor had initiallyrecommended prosecution as well under P.D. 401, a law


25/33

specifically designed against tampering with the phoneservice operations of PLDT. Facially, it would appear thatprosecution of petitioner under any of these other lawswould have been eminently more appropriate than thepresent recourse, which utilizes the same provision used topenalize pickpockets.

But since the State has preferred to pursue this more

cumbersome theory of the case, we are now belabored toanalyze whether the facts

_______________

9 In the Philippines, Congress has not amended the Revised Penal

Code to include theft of services or theft of business as felonies. Instead, it

approved a law, Republic Act No. 8484, otherwise known as the Access

Devices Regulation Act of 1998, on February 11, 1998. Under the law, an

access device means any card, plate, code, account number, electronic

serial number, personal identification number and othertelecommunication services, equipment or instrumentalities-identifier or

other means of account access that can be used to obtain money, goods,

services or any other thing of value or to initiate a transfer of funds other

than a transfer originated solely by paper instrument. Among the

prohibited acts enumerated in Section 9 of the law are the acts of

obtaining money or anything of value through the use of an access device,

with intent to defraud or intent to gain and fleeing thereafter; and of

effecting transactions with one or more access devices issued to another

person or persons to receive payment or any other thing of value. Under

Section 11 of the law, conspiracy to commit access devices fraud is a crime.

However, the petitioner is not charged of violation of R.A. 8484.

Significantly, a prosecution under the law shall be without prejudice to

any liability for violation of any provisions of the Revised Penal Code

inclusive of theft under Rule 308 of the Revised Penal Code and estafa

under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, if an individual steals

a credit card and uses the same to obtain services, he is liable of the

following: theft of the credit card under Article 308 of the Revised Penal

Code; violation of Republic Act No. 8484; and estafa under Article 315(2)

(a) of the Revised Penal Code with the service provider as the privatecomplainant. The petitioner is not charged of estafa before the RTC in the

Amended Information. Laurel v. Abrogar , G.R. 155706, 27 February

2006, 483 SCRA 243.

63

VOL. 576, JANUARY 13, 2009 63

Laurel vs. Abrogar


26/33

as alleged in the Amended Information could somehowalign with the statutory elements of theft under the RPC.

The crime of theft is penalized under Article 308 of theRPC. From that provision, we have long recognized thefollowing as the elements of theft: (1) that there be takingof personal property; (2) that said property belongs to

another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4)that the taking be done without the consent of the owner;and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force uponthings. 10

In analyzing whether the crime of theft had beencommitted given the allegations in this case, it is againstthese five elements that the facts must be tested. We canagree outright that the taking alleged in this case wasaccomplished without the use of violence against orintimidation of persons or force upon things. It can also beconceded for now that the element of animo lucrandi , orintent to gain, does not bear materiality to our presentdiscussion and its existence may be presumed for themoment.

Let us discuss the remaining elements of theft as theyrelate to the Amended Information, and its contentiousallegation that petitioner did unlawfully and feloniouslytake, steal and use the international long distance calls

belonging to PLDT. Are international long distance calls personal

property? The assailed Decision did not believe so, but Iagree with the present Resolution that they are. The Courtnow equates telephone calls to electrical energy. To beclear, telephone calls are not exactly alike as pureelectricity. They are sound waves (created by the humanvoice) which are carried by electrical currents to therecipient on the other line. 11 While electricity is merely themedium through which the telephone calls are carried, it issufficiently analogous to allow the courts to

_______________

10 See e.g. People v. Bustinera , G.R. No. 148233, 8 June 2004, 431

SCRA 284, 291, citing People v. Sison , 322 SCRA 345, 363-364 (2000).

11 When a person speaks into a telephone, the sound waves created by

his voice enter the mouthpiece. An electric current carries the sound to the

telephone of the person he is talking to. See How the Telephone Works , at


27/33

http://areaonline.com/phone/telworks.html.

64


Laurel vs. Abrogar

consider such calls as possessing similar physicalcharacteristics as electricity.

The assailed Decision conceded that when a telephonecall was made, the human voice [is] converted intoelectronic impulses or electrical current. 12 As theResolution now correctly points out, electricity or electronicenergy may be the subject of theft, as it is personalproperty capable of appropriation. Since physically atelephone call is in the form of an electric signal, our

jurisprudence acknowledging that electricity is personalproperty which may be stolen through theft is applicable.

III.I now turn to the issue of the legal ownership of the

international long distance calls, or telephone calls ingeneral for that matter. An examination of the physicalcharacteristics of telephone calls is useful for our purposes.

As earlier stated, telephone calls take on the form of electrical current, though they are distinguished fromordinary electricity in that they are augmented by thehuman voice which is transmitted from one phone toanother. A material inquiry is how these calls aregenerated in the first place?

It bears significance that neither the RTC nor the Courtof Appeals concluded that PLDT owns the telephone calls.Instead, they concluded that PLDT owns the telephoneservice, a position that is intellectually plausible, unlikethe contention that PLDT owns the actual calls themselves.

Yet PLDT is willing to make the highly controversial claim

that it owns the phone calls, despite the absence of anyreliable or neutral evidence to that effect.

PLDT argues that it does not merely transmit thetelephone calls but actually creates them. The claimshould beggar belief, if only for the underlying implicationthat if PLDT creates telephone calls, such calls can comeinto existence without the participation of a caller, or ahuman voice for that matter.


28/33

_______________

12 Id. , at p. 273.

65

VOL. 576, JANUARY 13, 2009 65

Laurel vs. Abrogar

Let us examine the analysis of the American lawprofessors Benjamin, Lichtman and Shelanski in theirtextbook Telecommunications Law and Policy. Inillustrating the telephone system vocabulary, they offerthe following discussion:

Consumers have in their homes standard equipment (liketelephones) capable of encoding and receiving voicecommunications. Businesses have similar basic equipment. Thisequipment is what insiders call customer premises equipment,which is abbreviated CPE. The Telecommunications Act of 1996defines CPE as equipment employed on the premises of a person(other than a carrier) to originate, route or terminatetelecommunications. 47 U.S.C. 153(14). This category, asimplemented by the FCC, includes not only basic telephones butalso answering machines, fax machines, modems, and evenprivate branch exchange (PBX) equipment (in which a large

entity maintains, in effect, its own switch-board to variousinternal extensions). 13

It has been suggested that PLDT owns the phone callsbecause it is the entity that encodes or decodes such callseven as they originate from a human voice. Yet it isapparent from the above discussion that the device thatencodes or decodes telephone calls is the CPE, moreparticularly the telephone receiver. It is the telephonereceiver, which is in the possession of the telephone user,

which generates the telephone call at the initiative of theuser. Now it is known from experience that while PLDTdoes offer its subscribers the use of telephone receiversmarked with the PLDT logo, subscribers are free to go to

Abenson and purchase a telephone receiver manufacturedby an entity other than PLDT, such as Sony or BellSiemens or Panasonic. Since such is the case, it cannot beaccurately said that the encoding or decoding of Philippinetelephone calls is done through the exclusive use of PLDTequipment, because the telephone receivers we use are


29/33

invariably purchased directly by the very same people whocall or receive the phone calls.

It likewise appears from the particular facts of this casethat some, if not many of the phone calls alleged to havebeen stolen from PLDT were generated by calls originatingnot from the Philippines, but from

_______________

13 S. Benjamin, D. Lichtman & H. Shelanski, Telecommunications Lawand Policy (2001 ed.), at p. 613.

66


Laurel vs. Abrogar

Japan. Assuming that the telephone company exclusivelygenerates the phone calls, those calls originating fromJapan were not generated by PLDT, but by KDDI, NTT,Japan Telecom, Verizon Japan , and all the other longdistance telephone service providers in Japan.

If PLDT were indeed the owner of the telephone calls,then it should be able to demonstrate by which mode did itacquire ownership under the Civil Code. Under that Code,ownership may be acquired by occupation, by intellectualcreation, by law, by donation, by testate and intestatesuccession, by prescription, and in consequence of certaincontracts, by tradition. 14 Under which mode of acquisitioncould PLDT deemed as acquiring ownership over thetelephone calls? We can exclude outright, without need of discussion, such modes as testate and intestate succession,prescription, and tradition. Neither can the case be madethat telephone calls are susceptible to intellectual creation.Donation should also be ruled out, since a donation must be

accepted in writing by the donee in order to become valid,and that obviously cannot apply as to telephone calls.Can telephone calls be acquired by occupation?

According to Article 713, properties which are acquired byoccupation are things appropriable by nature which arewithout an owner, such as animals that are the object of hunting and fishing, hidden treasure and abandonedmovables. It is not possible to establish a plausibleanalogy between telephone calls and animals that are theobject of hunting or fishing, or of hidden treasure and of


30/33

abandoned movables.Is it possible that PLDT somehow acquired ownership overthe phone calls by reason of law? No law vesting ownershipover the phone calls to PLDT or any other local telephoneservice provider is in existence.

All these points demonstrate the strained reasoningbehind the claim that PLDT owns the international long

distance calls. Indeed, applying the traditional legalparadigm that governs the regulation of telecommunications companies, it becomes even clearerthat PLDT cannot validly assert such ownership.Telephone companies have

_______________

14 See Article 712, Civil Code.

67

VOL. 576, JANUARY 13, 2009 67

Laurel vs. Abrogar

historically been regulated as common carriers. 15 The 1936Public Service Act classifies wire or wirelesscommunications systems as a public service, along withother common carriers. 16 In the United States, telephoneproviders were expressly decreed to operate as commoncarriers in the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910, 17 utilizing ananalogy typically akin to the regulation of railroads. 18

Under the Public Service Act, a telephonecommunication system is classified as a public service,not a common carrier. That fact might seem to imply thatthe two phrases are mutually exclusive, despite the factthat the Public Service Act does categorize as belonging topublic service, any common carrier, railroad, street

railway, subway motor vehicle, either for freight orpassenger, or both, with or without fixed route andwhatever may be its classification, freight or carrier serviceof any class, express service, steamboat, or steamship, orsteamship line, pontines, ferries and water craft, engagedin the transportation of passengers or freight or both. 19

It may be correct to say that under the Civil Code, atelephone system is not a common carrier, the civil lawdefinition of such term limited to persons, corporations,firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or


31/33

transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water orair... 20 Still, it cannot be denied that the weight of authorities have accepted that the traditional regulationregime of

_______________

15 See Globe Telecom, Inc. v. National TelecommunicationsCommission , G.R. No. 143964, 26 July 2004, 435 SCRA 110, 121; citing K.

Middleton, R. Trager & B. Chamberlin, The Law of Public Communication

(5th ed., 2001), at p. 578; in turn citing 47 U.S.C Secs. 201, 202.

16 See Sec. 13(b), Public Service Act, as amended (1936).

17 See H. Zuckman, R. Corn-Revere, R. Frieden, C. Kennedy, ModernCommunications Law (1999 ed.), at p. 911.

18 Id. , at p. 912.

19 See also De Guzman v. Court of Appeals , 168 SCRA 612 (1988), So

understood, the concept of common carrier under Article 1732 [of the

Civil Code] may be seen to coincide neatly with the notion of publicservice, under the Public Service Act (Commonwealth Act No. 1416, as

amended) which at least partially supplements the law on common

carriers set forth in the Civil Code.

20 See Article 1732, Civil Code.

68


Laurel vs. Abrogar

telephone service providers has been akin to commoncarriers, both in the United States and the Philippines. 21

The legal paradigm that treats PLDT as akin to acommon carrier should alert against any notion that it isthe owner of the long distance overseas calls alleged ashaving been stolen in the Amended Information. Moreprecisely, it merely transmits these calls, owned by

another, to the intended recipient. Applying the commoncarrier paradigm, when a public transport system iscontracted to transport goods or persons to a destination,the transport company does not acquire ownership oversuch goods or such persons, even though it is in custody of the same for the duration of the trip. Just because thephone calls are transmitted using the facilities and servicesof PLDT, it does not follow that PLDT is the owner of suchcalls.

On this score, the distinction must be made between a
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000148ead5b6e3ffee6c1e000a0082004500cc/p/AMM791/?username=Jeric#body_ftn39http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000148ead5b6e3ffee6c1e000a0082004500cc/p/AMM791/?username=Jeric#body_ftn38http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000148ead5b6e3ffee6c1e000a0082004500cc/p/AMM791/?username=Jeric#body_ftn37http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000148ead5b6e3ffee6c1e000a0082004500cc/p/AMM791/?username=Jeric#body_ftn36http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000148ead5b6e3ffee6c1e000a0082004500cc/p/AMM791/?username=Jeric#body_ftn35http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000148ead5b6e3ffee6c1e000a0082004500cc/p/AMM791/?username=Jeric#body_ftn34


32/33

telephone company such as PLDT, and a power companysuch as Meralco. Both companies are engaged in thebusiness of distributing electrical energy to end-users. Inthe case of Meralco, it is pure electricity, while in PLDTscase, it is an electronic signal converted out of anindispensable element which is the human voice andtransformed back to the original voice at the point of

reception. Neither Meralco nor PLDT created the electronicenergy it transmits. But in Meralcos case, it purchases theelectricity from a generating company such as the NationalPower Corporation, and it may thus be considered as theowner of such electricity by reason of the sale. PLDTs caseis different, as it does not purchase the electronic signals ittransmits. These signals are created by the interactionbetween the human voice and the electrical current.Indeed, the logical consequences should it be held thatPLDT owns these long distance overseas calls are quiteperilous. PLDT, as owner of these calls (or any telephonecalls made for that matter),

_______________

21 See Globe Telecom, Inc. v. National Telecommunications

Commission , G.R. No. 143964, 26 July 2004, 435 SCRA 110, 121, citing K.

Middleton, R. Trager & B. Chamberlin, The Law of Public Communication

(5th ed., 2001), at p. 578, in turn citing 47 U.S.C. Secs. 201, 202.

69

VOL. 576, JANUARY 13, 2009 69

Laurel vs. Abrogar

would have in theory, the right to record these calls andsell them. 22 That is a circumstance not one of us wants tocontemplate.

At the very least, it is clear that the caller or therecipient of the phone call has a better right to assertownership thereof than the telephone company. Andcritically, the subject Amended Information does not allegethat the international long distance calls were takenwithout the consent of either the caller or the recipient.

I am thus hard pressed to conclude that the AmendedInformation as it stands was able to allege one of theessential elements of the crime of theft, that the personalproperty belonging to another was taken without the


33/33

latters consent. All the Amended Information alleged wasthat the taking was without PLDTs consent, a moot pointconsidering that PLDT is most definitely not the owner of the phone calls.

The consensus of the majority has been to direct theamendment of the subject Amended Information to sustainthe current prosecution of the petitioners without

suggesting in any way that PLDT is the owner of thoseinternational long distance calls. Said result is acceptableto me, and I concur therein.

Motion for Reconsideration granted, assailed judgmentreconsidered and set aside.

Note .Theft is produced when there is deprivation of personal property due to its taking by one with intent togain, and, viewed from that perspective, it is immaterial to

the product of the felony that the offender, once havingcommitted all the acts of execution for theft, is able orunable to freely dispose of the property stolen since thedeprivation from the owner alone has already ensued fromsuch acts of execution. ( Valenzuela vs. People , 525 SCRA 306 [2007])

o0o

_______________

22 See Art. 428, Civil Code.

Copyright 2014 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Documents

Laurel v Abrogar (full text)