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 COMPANY, RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 155076 February 27, 2006

FACTS:
Baynet Co., Ltd. is being sued for network fraud. Laurel is the board member and
corporate secretary of Baynet. 2 other Filipinos and two Japanese composed the
board. Baynet sells "Bay Super Orient Card" which uses an alternative calling patterns
called 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 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. Search warrants were issued against Baynet through PLDT's complaint. The
search was followed by an inquest investigation. The prosecutor found probable
cause for THEFT and filed Information. After preliminary investigation the information
was amended to include Laurel and the other members of the board for THEFT using
ISR. Luis Marcos Laurel filed a "Motion to Quash (with Motion to Defer Arraignment)“.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT:

Laurel claimed that the telephone calls with the use of PLDT telephone lines, whether
domestic or international belongs to the person making the call, not to PLDT. He
argued that the caller merely uses the facilities of PLDT, and the latter owns are the
telecommunication infrastructures or facilities through which the call is made. He also
asserted that the PLDT is compensated for the caller’s use of its facilities by way of
rental; for an outgoing overseas call, PLDT charges the call per minute, based on the
duration of the call. Thus, no property was stolen from PLDT. According to Laurel,
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.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT:

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 with out the priors consent.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the PLDT's business of providing telecommunication services is a

personal property under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
PROVISION SUBJECT TO STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code

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.
RULING:
No, PLDT's business of providing telecommunication services is not a personal property
under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. Personal property under the Revised
Penal Code covers both tangible and intangible properties but must be considered
with the word "take" in the law. There is "taking" of personal property, and theft is
consummated when the offender unlawfully acquires possession of personal property
even if for a short time; or if such property is under the dominion and control of the
thief. The statutory definition of "taking" clearly indicates that 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 subjects of theft. Movable properties under Article 308 of the
Revised Penal Code should be distinguished from the rights or interest to which they
relate to. While the rights or interests are properties, they are not considered personal
properties under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.

PLDT's business is intangible and cannot be taken by another and not the proper
subjects of theft because they are without form or substance.