Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

G.R. No.

155076 February 27, 2006


LUIS MARCOS P. LAUREL, Petitioner,
Vs.
HON. ZEUS C. ABROGAR, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Makati City, Branch
150, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES & PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE (PLDT)
COMPANY, Respondents
FACTS
Who:
Luis Marcos P. Laurel - board member and corporate secretary of Baynet Co., Ltd. (Baynet)-
now Petitioner (one of the respondent or co-accused in the case filed by PLDT)
Co-accused: Yuji Hijioka, Yasushi Ueshima, Mukaida, Lacson and Villegas
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) - Private respondent (the petitioner in
the initial proceeding)
HON. ZEUS C. ABROGAR - Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Makati City, Branch
150 whose decision is sought to be reversed in the case. –Respondent
What:
An information was filed by the state prosecutor impleading Laurel and other respondents
of theft under Article 308 of Revised Penal Code. Accused Laurel filed a "Motion to Quash”
(a) (with Motion to Defer Arraignment)". The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued an Order
denying the Motion to Quash the Amended Information. RTC also denied his Motion for
Reconsideration. Laurel then filed a Petition for Certiorari (b) with the Court of Appeals
(CA), assailing the Order of the RTC. The CA dismissed the petition. Laurel, now the
petitioner, assails the decision of the CA before the Supreme Court (SC).
(a) Motion to Quash - A motion to quash is a request to a court to render a previous
decision of that court or a lower judicial body null or invalid. It can arise out of
mistakes made by any lawyer in a court proceeding. A lawyer may file a motion
to quash if a mistake has been on the part of a court.
(b) Petition for Certiorari - A document which a losing party files with the Supreme
Court asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court. It
includes a list of the parties, a statement of the facts of the case, the legal
questions presented for review, and arguments as to why the Court should grant
the writ.
Why:
Reasons of the Parties:
PLDT claims that herein petitioner together with his co-accused conspired together in order
to steal and use the international long distance calls belonging to PLDT by conducting
International Simple Resale (ISR), 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 P20,370,651.92 to the damage and prejudice of PLDT, in the said
amount without the priors consent.
Laurel however alleged that the telephone calls with the use of PLDT telephone lines,
whether domestic or international, belong to the persons making the call, not to PLDT. He
argued that the caller merely uses the facilities of PLDT, and what the latter owns are the
telecommunication infrastructures or facilities through which the call is made. He also
asserted that PLDT is compensated for the caller’s use of its facilities by way of rental; for an
outgoing overseas call, PLDT charges the caller per minute, based on the duration of the call.
Thus, no personal property was stolen from PLDT. According to Laurel, the P20, 370,651.92
stated in the Information, if anything, represents the rental for the use of PLDT facilities, and
not the value of anything owned by it.
Objectives of the Parties:
PLDT wishes for the petitioner to be impleaded for committing theft and the loss they've
suffered be respectively reimbursed or returned to them.
Laurel on the other hand, prays that the motion to quash be granted as the factual basis of
herein private respondent as stated in their complaint does not fall within the ambit of Art.
308 of the RPC.
When and Where:
November 8, 1999 (7th Floor, SJG Building, Kalayaan Avenue Makati City) – Matsuura,
Miyake, Lacson, and Villegas were arrested by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
agents while in the act of manning the operations of Baynet.
February 8, 2000 – State Prosecutor Calo filed an Information with the RTC of Makati City
charging the Matsuura, Miyake, Lacson and Villegas with theft under Article 308 of the RPC.
After conducting he requisite preliminary investigation, the State Prosecutor filed an
Amended Information impleading Laurel and other board of directors of said corporation
(namely: Yuji Hijioka, Yasushi Ueshima, Mukaida, Lacson and Villegas as accused for theft
under Article 308 of the RPC.
September 14, 2001 – the RTC issued an Order denying the Motion to Quash the Amended
Information. Laurel then filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order, alleging that
international long distance calls are not personal property, and are not capable of
appropriation.
December 11, 2001 – the RTC denied the movant’s Motion for Reconsideration. Laurel then
filed a Petition of Certiorari with the CA, assailing the Order of the RTC. He alleged that the
respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in denying his Motion to Quash the
Amended Information.
Things to Remember:
> Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) is the holder of a legislative franchise
to render local and international telecommunication services under Republic Act No. 7082.
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.>PLDT alleges that one of the alternative
calling patterns that constitute network fraud and violate its network integrity is that which
is known as International Simple Resale (ISR). ISR is a method of routing and completing
international long distance calls using International Private Leased Lines (IPL), cables,
antenna or air wave or frequency, which connect directly to the local or domestic exchange
facilities of the terminating country (the country where the call is destined). The IPL is linked
to switching equipment which is connected to a PLDT telephone line/number. In the
process, the calls bypass the IGF found at the terminating country, or in some instances,
even those from the originating country>One such alternative calling service is that offered
by Baynet Co., Ltd. (Baynet) which sells "BaySuper Orient Card" phone cards to people who
call their friends and relatives in the Philippines. PLDT asserts that Baynet conducts its ISR
activities by utilizing an IPL to course its incoming international long distance calls from
Japan. The IPL is linked to switching equipment, which is then connected to PLDT telephone
lines/numbers and equipment, with Baynet as subscriber. Through the use of the telephone
lines and other auxiliary equipment, Baynet is able to connect an international long distance
call from Japan to any part of the Philippines, and make it appear as a call originating from
Metro Manila. Consequently, the operator of an ISR is able to evade payment of access,
termination or bypass charges and accounting rates, as well as compliance with the
regulatory requirements of the NTC. Thus, the ISR operator offers international
telecommunication services at a lower rate, to the damage and prejudice of legitimate
operators like PLDT.
>After conducting the requisite preliminary investigation, the State Prosecutor filed an
Amended Information impleading Laurel (a partner in the law firm of Ingles, Laurel, Salinas,
and, until November 19, 1999, a member of the board of directors and corporate secretary
of Baynet), and the other members of the board of directors of said corporation, namely,
Yuji Hijioka, Yasushi Ueshima, Mukaida, Lacson and Villegas, as accused for theft under
Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
>Laurel moved to quash said complaint as the property (service/business) contemplated by
herein private respondent is not the one embraced in ART 308 of RPC nor any special law for
that matter. Laurel further cited the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice in Piltel v.
Mendoza, where it was ruled that the Revised Penal Code, legislated as it was before
present technological advances were even conceived, is not adequate to address the novel
means of "stealing" airwaves or airtime. In said resolution, it was noted that the inadequacy
prompted the filing of Senate Bill 2379 (sic) entitled "The Anti-Telecommunications Fraud of
1997" to deter cloning of cellular phones and other forms of communications fraud. The
said bill "aims to protect in number (ESN) (sic) or Capcode, mobile identification number
(MIN), electronic-international mobile equipment identity (EMEI/IMEI), or subscriber
identity module" and "any attempt to duplicate the data on another cellular phone without
the consent of a public telecommunications entity would be punishable by law." Thus,
Laurel concluded, "there is no crime if there is no law punishing the crime."
>The RTC as well as the CA however dismissed his motion. Thus he filed a motion for
certiorari before the SC alleging the following: the respondent judge gravely abused his
discretion in denying his Motion to Quash the Amended Information. As gleaned from the
material averments of the amended information, he was charged with stealing the
international long distance calls belonging to PLDT, not its business. Moreover, the RTC
failed to distinguish between the business of PLDT (providing services for international long
distance calls) and the revenues derived therefrom. He opined that a "business" or its
revenues cannot be considered as personal property under Article308 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."
ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPERTY CONTEMPLATED BY HEREIN PRIVATE RESPONDENT
FALLSWITHIN THE AMBIT OF ART. 308 OF RPC, thus no network fraud exist.
HELD
NO, THE KIND OF PERSONAL PROPERTY CONTEMPLATED BY SAID ARTICLE DOES NOT COVER
THE 'BUSINESS OR SERVICE' RENDERED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENT.
The court finds that the international telephone calls placed by Bay Super Orient
Cardholders, the telecommunication services provided by PLDT and its business of providing
said services are not personal properties under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. The
rule is that, penal laws are to be construed strictly.
It is Congress, not the Court, which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment. Due
respect for the prerogative of Congress in defining crimes/felonies constrains the Court to
refrain from a broad interpretation of penal laws where a "narrow interpretation" is
appropriate. And only when the congressional purpose is unclear that court my rule on its
lenity.
Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code defines theft as follows:
Art. 308. Who are liable for theft.
– 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. For one to be guilty of theft, the accused must have an intent
to steal (animus furandi) personal property, meaning the intent to deprive another of his
ownership/lawful possession of personal property which intent is apart from and
concurrently with the general criminal intent which is an essential element of a felony of
dolo (dolus malus).
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. One is apt to conclude that "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 statutory
definition of "taking" and movable property indicates that, clearly, not all personal
properties may be the proper subjects of theft. The general rule is that, only movable
properties which have physical or material existence and susceptible of occupation by
another are proper objects of theft. According to Cuello Callon, in the context of the Penal
Code, only those movable properties which can be taken and carried from the place they
are found are 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.
A naked right existing merely in contemplation of law, although it may be very valuable to
the person who is entitled to exercise it, is not the subject of theft or larceny. Such rights or
interests are intangible and cannot be "taken" by another. Thus, right to produce oil, good
will or an interest in business, or the right to engage in business, credit or franchise are
properties. So is the credit line represented by a credit card. However, they are not proper
subjects of theft or larceny because they are without form or substance, the mere "breath"
of the Congress.
Disposition:
Petition is granted. The assailed decision of RTC and CA is hereby reversed and ser aside.
The Regional Trial Court is directed to issue an order granting the motion of the petitioner
to quash the Amended Information.

D. Mala in se vis-à-vis Mala Prohibita

G.R. No. 157171 March 14, 2006


ARSENIA B. GARCIA, Petitioner,
Vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS
Who:
Arsenia B. Garcia – Election Officer; The one who read the adding [Machine] tape; the one
who entered the reduced figure of 1,921 in the Certificate of Canvas (COC) – when the duty
was that of the Secretary of the board.
Co-conspirators: Herminio R. Romero, Renato R. Viray, Rachel Palisoc and Francisca
de Vera.
Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. - ran in the 1995 senatorial elections

What:
On May 11, 1995, within the canvassing period of 1995 senatiorial elections, Aquilino
Pimintel, Jr., was informed that Arsenia Garcia (Arsenia), along with her co-conspirators,
willfully and unlawfully decreased the number of votes of the candidate from 6,998 to 1921
votes.
Pimintel filed a complaint against Asenia and her co-conspirators. All the accused was
acquited due to lack of evidence except for Arsenia who was found guilty of the crime
defined under Republic Act 6646, Section 27 (b) for decreasing the votes of Senator
Pimentel in the total of 5,034 and in relation to BP Blg. 881.
Petitioner appealed to CA which also affirmed the decision of the RTC.
The trial court found Garcia guilty. On appeal, Garcia invoked that the trial court erred in
ruling that her defense of good faith was not properly appreciated. She averred that due to
the workload given to her during said elections, she got fatigued and that caused the error
in the tabulation of Pimentel’s votes. Simply, Arsenia appealed to SC, contending that the
judgment of CA is erroneous and there was no motive on her part to reduce the votes of
private complainant.
Respondent on the other hand contends that good faith is not a defense in the violation of
an election law, which falls under the class of mala prohibita.
When:
May 8, 1995 – elections (in the Municipality of Alaminos, Province of Pangasinan, PH)
May 11, 1995 – canvassing period
September 11, 2000 – Decision of the RTC; acquitted all the accused for insufficiency of
evidence, except for the petitioner who was convicted as follows:
Arsenia B. Garcia, the Court pronounces her GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, of the
crime defined under Republic Act 6646, Section 27 (b) for decreasing the votes of Senator
Pimentel in the total of 5,034 and in relation to BP Blg. 881, considering that this finding is a
violation of Election Offense, she is thus sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of SIX (6)
YEARS as maximum, but applying the INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW, the minimum
penalty is the next degree lower which is SIX (6) MONTHS; however, accused Arsenia B.
Garcia is not entitled to probation; further, she is sentenced to suffer disqualification to hold
public office and she is also deprived of her right of suffrage.
ISSUES
(1) Whether or not a violation of Section 27(b) of Rep. Act No. 6646, classified under
mala in se.
(2) Whether or not good faith and lack of criminal intent be valid defenses?
HELD
(1) YES. Section 27(b) of Republic Act No. 6646 provides: Any member of the board of
election inspectors or board of canvassers who tampers, increases, or decreases the votes
received by a candidate in any election or any member of the board who refuses, after
proper verification and hearing, to credit the correct votes or deduct such tampered votes.
Clearly, the acts prohibited in Section 27(b) are mala in se. For otherwise, even errors and
mistakes committed due to overwork and fatigue would be punishable.
(2) NO. Public policy dictates that extraordinary diligence should be exercised by the
members of the board of canvassers in canvassing the results of the elections. Any error on
their part would result in the disenfranchisement of the voters. The Certificate of Canvass
for senatorial candidates and its supporting statements of votes prepared by the municipal
board of canvassers are sensitive election documents whose entries must be thoroughly
scrutinized.
The instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals sustaining
petitioner’s conviction but increasing the minimum penalty in her sentence to one year
instead of six months is AFFIRMED.

To answer, whether it is Mala Prohibita/Malum Prohibitum:


No. Generally, mala in se crimes refer to those felonies in violation of the Revised Penal
Code. However, it must be noted that mala in se are crimes which are inherently immoral.
Hence, even if the crime is punished by a special law, if it is inherently immoral, then it is still
a crime mala in se.
In this case, the said violation of the Electoral Reforms Law is a mala in se crime because it is
inherently immoral to decrease the vote of a candidate. Note also that what is being
punished is the intentional decreasing of a candidate’s votes and not those arising from
errors and mistakes. Since a violation of this special law is a malum in se, good faith can be
raised as a defense.
However, Garcia’s defense of good faith was not proven. Facts show that the decreasing of
Pimentel’s vote was not due to error or mistake. It was shown that she willingly handled
certain duties which were not supposed to be hers to perform. That’s a clear sign that she
facilitated the erroneous entry.
G.R. NO. 169533, MARCH 20, 2013
GEORGE BONGALON VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS
Who:
George Bongalon – Petitioner, Father of Mary Ann Rose and Cherrylyn. (accused of child
abuse)
Jayson dela Cruz – a twelve year-old, Grade VI pupil of MABA Institute, Legazpi City
(accused of throwing stones at Mary Ann Rose during the procession and calling the sisters
“Kimi”)
Roldan dela Cruz – brother of Jayson, also a minor
Mary Ann Rose – daughter of George Bongalon (accused of throwing rocks at Jayson Dela
Cruz and calling him “sissy”.)
Cherrylyn – sister of Mary Ann Rose; claims that Jayson has burnt her hair.
Rolando dela Cruz – father of Jayson and Roldan; brought Jayson to the Legazpi City Police
Station and reported the incident.
What:
On May 11, 2002, Jayson Dela Cruz (Jayson) and Roldan, his older brother, both minors,
joined the evening procession for the Santo Niño at Oro Site in Legazpi City; that when the
procession passed in front of the petitioner’s house, the latter’s daughter Mary Ann Rose,
also a minor, threw stones at Jayson and called him “sissy”; that the petitioner confronted
Jayson and Roldan and called them names like “strangers” and “animals” (exact phrase:
“Mga hayop kamo, para dayo kamo digdi, Iharap mo dito ama mo” translation: “You all
animals, you are all strangers here. Bring your father here”); that the petitioner struck
Jayson at the back with his hand, and slapped Jayson on the face; that the petitioner then
went to the brothers’ house and challenged Rolando dela Cruz, their father, to a fight, but
Rolando did not come out of the house to take on the petitioner; that Rolando later brought
Jayson to the Legazpi City Police Station and reported the incident; that Jayson also
underwent medical treatment at the Bicol Regional Training and Teaching Hospital; that the
doctors who examined Jayson issued two medical certificates attesting that Jayson suffered
the following contusions, to wit: (1) contusion .5 x 2.5 scapular area, left; and (2) +1×1 cm.
contusion left zygomatic area and contusion .5 x 2.33 cm. scapular area, left. On his part, the
petitioner denied having physically abused or maltreated Jayson. He explained that he only
talked with Jayson and Roldan after Mary Ann Rose and Cherrylyn, his minor daughters, had
told him about Jayson and Roldan’s throwing stones at them and about Jayson’s burning
Cherrylyn’s hair. He denied shouting invectives at and challenging Rolando to a fight,
insisting that he only told Rolando to restrain his sons from harming his daughters. To
corroborate the petitioner’s testimony, Mary Ann Rose testified that her father did not hit
or slap but only confronted Jayson, asking why Jayson had called her daughters “Kimi” and
why he had burned Cherrlyn’s hair. Mary Ann Rose denied throwing stones at Jayson and
calling him a “sissy.” She insisted that it was instead Jayson who had pelted her with stones
during the procession. She described the petitioner as a loving and protective father.

Crime charged: child abuse, an act in violation of Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610
RTC: found and declared the petitioner guilty of child abuse as charged
CA: affirmed the conviction, but modified the penalty

ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioner was guilty of the crime charged and that even assuming that
he was guilty, his liability should be mitigated because he had merely acted to protect her
two minor daughters (ONLY SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES; PENALTY IS MITIGATED)

HELD
Although the Court affirms the factual findings of fact by the RTC and the CA to the effect
that the petitioner struck Jayson at the back with his hand and slapped Jayson on the face, it
disagrees with their holding that his acts constituted child abuse within the purview of
Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610.
The records did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that his laying of hands on Jayson
had been intended to debase the “intrinsic worth and dignity” of Jayson as a human being,
or that he had thereby intended to humiliate or embarrass Jayson. The records showed the
laying of hands on Jayson to have been done at the spur of the moment and in anger,
indicative of his being then overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the personal safety of
his own minor daughters who had just suffered harm at the hands of Jayson and Roldan.
With the loss of his selfcontrol, he lacked that specific intent to debase, degrade or demean
the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being that was so essential in the crime
of child abuse.
It is not trite to remind that under the well-recognized doctrine of pro reo, every doubt is
resolved in favor of the petitioner as the accused. Thus, the Court should consider all
possible circumstances in his favor. Considering that Jayson’s physical injury required five to
seven days of medical attention, the petitioner was liable for slight physical injuries under
Article 266(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
The penalty for slight physical injuries is arresto menor, which ranges from one day to 30
days of imprisonment. In imposing the correct penalty, however, the Court has to consider
the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation under Article 13(6) of the Revised
Penal Code, because the petitioner lost his reason and self-control, thereby diminishing the
exercise of his will power. It is relevant to mention, too, that in passion or obfuscation, the
offender suffers a diminution of intelligence and intent.
Arresto menor is prescribed in its minimum period in the absence of any aggravating
circumstance that offset the mitigating circumstance of passion. Accordingly, with the
Indeterminate Sentence Law being inapplicable due to the penalty imposed not exceeding
one year, the petitioner shall suffer a straight penalty of 10 days of arresto menor.

QUICK RECAP
Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime of child abuse
under Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610.1 Only when the laying of hands is shown
beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by the accused to debase, degrade or demean the
intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being should it be punished as child
abuse. Otherwise, it is punished under the Revised Penal Code. In this case, records showed
that the laying of hands on Jayson have been done at the spur of moment and in anger,
indicative of his being overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the personal safety of his
own minor daughters who had just suffered harm at the hands of Jayson and his
companion. With the lost of his self-control, he lacked the specific intent to debase,
degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being that was
so essential in the crime of the child abuse. However, considering that Jayson suffered
physical injury requiring five to seven days of medical attention, Bongalon is liable for slight
physical injuries under Art.266 (1) of the RPC.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi