Laurel vs. Abrogar - PROPERTY

LAUREL vs.
ABROGAR
FACTS
On February 2006, the SC First Division rendered judgment reversing the decision of
the RTC and the CA which denied the petitioner’s Motion to Quash on the ground that the
factual allegations in the Amended Information do not constitute the felony of theft.
The information charged the petitioner for the crime of theft by taking and stealing the
international long distance calls of PLDT by conducting International Simple Resale, 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 in the country where the call is destined, to the prejudice of PLDT in the estimated
amount of P20,370,651.92.
The SC 1st Division held that the Amended Information does not contain material
allegations charging petitioner with theft of personal property since international long-
distance calls and the business of providing telecommunications or telephone services are not
personal properties under Art. 308 of the RPC.
Respondent PLDT filed a Motion for Reconsideration w/Motion to refer the case to
the SC En Banc. It maintains that it identifies the international calls and business of providing
telecommunications or telephone service of PLDT as the personal properties capable of
appropriation which were unlawfully taken by the accused. Respondent PLDT further insists
that the RPC should be interpreted in the context of the Civil Code’s definition of real and
personal property. The enumeration of real properties under Art. 415 is exclusive such that all
those not included therein are personal properties. According to respondent, the "international
phone calls" which are "electric currents or sets of electric impulses transmitted through a
medium, and carry a pattern representing the human voice to a receiver," are personal
properties which may be subject of theft. Article 416(3) of the Civil Code deems "forces of
nature" (which includes electricity) which are brought under the control by science, are
personal property.
Petitioner claims that a telephone call is a communication carried out using a

telephone and is not synonymous to electric current or impulses. Hence, it cannot be
considered as personal property susceptible of appropriation. Petitioner claims that PLDT
does not produce or generate telephone calls. It only provides the facilities or services for the
transmission of calls. Petitioner likewise insists that business is not personal property. It is the
right to carry on a business which is considered as a property.
The OSG submits that international phone calls and the business of providing
international phone calls are subsumed in the enumeration and definition of personal property
under the Civil Code. It noted several cases which recognized intangible properties like gas
and electricity as personal properties.
ISSUE
Whether or not international phone calls and the business of providing international phone
calls are considered as personal properties.
COURTS’ RULING
1. Yes. The Court has consistently ruled that any personal property, tangible or
intangible, corporeal or incorporeal, capable of appropriation can be the object of
theft. The term personal property in the RPC should be interpreted in the context
of the Civil Code provisions in accordance with the rule on statutory construction
that where words have been long used in a technical sense and have been
judicially construed to have a certain meaning, and have been adopted by the
legislature as having a certain meaning prior to a particular statute, it should be
construed according to the sense in which they have been previously used.
The legislature did not limit or qualify the definition of personal property in the
RPC. Neither did it provide a restrictive definition or an exclusive enumeration,
showing its intent to retain for the term an extensive and unqualified
interpretation.
The only requirement for a personal property to be the object 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 away." Jurisprudence is settled that to
"take" under the theft provision of the penal code does not require asportation or
carrying away.
2. The business of providing telecommunications is likewise personal property

which can be an object of theft. Business may be appropriated under Section 2 of
Act No. 3952 or the Bulk Sales Law, hence, could be an object of theft.
Section 2. Any sale, transfer, mortgage, or assignment of a stock of goods, wares,

merchandise, provisions, or materials otherwise than in the ordinary course of trade and
the regular prosecution 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 conducted by the vendor, mortgagor, transferor or assignor, or all, or
substantially all, of the fixtures and equipment used in and about the business of the
vendor, mortgagor, transferor, or assignor, shall be deemed to be a sale and transfer in
bulk, in contemplation of the Act. x x x.
Interest in business was declared to be personal property since it is capable of

appropriation and not included in the enumeration of real properties. Article 414
of the Civil Code provides that all things which are or may be the object of
appropriation are considered either real property or personal property.
3. Petitioner’s acts constitutes theft of respondent’s business and service, committed

by means of unlawful use of the latter’s facilities. A telecommunication company
coverts the human voice signal and provides the medium for transmitting the
same.
It is conceded that the human voice is converted into electrical impulses or current
which are transmitted to the party called. A telephone call therefore, is electrical
energy. Intangible property such as electrical energy is capable of appropriation
because it may be taken and carried away. Electricity is personal property under
Art. 416 paragraph 3 of the Civil Code.
But while international long distance calls take the form of electrical energy, it
cannot be said that such calls were personal properties belonging to PLDT since
the latter could not have acquired ownership over such calls. PLDT merely
encodes, transmits said calls using its complex communication facilities. PLDT
not being the owner of said telephone calls, then it could not validly claim that
such calls were taken without its consent. It is the use of these communication
facilities without the consent of PLDT that constitutes theft, which is the unlawful
taking of the telephone services and business.

Laurel vs. Abrogar - PROPERTY

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Laurel vs. Abrogar - PROPERTY

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Laurel vs. Abrogar - PROPERTY

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAUREL vs.

Petitioner claims that a telephone call is a communication carried out using a

2. The business of providing telecommunications is likewise personal property

Section 2. Any sale, transfer, mortgage, or assignment of a stock of goods, wares,

Interest in business was declared to be personal property since it is capable of

3. Petitioner’s acts constitutes theft of respondent’s business and service, committed

You might also like