LAUREL vs.

ABROGAR Facts: On or about September 10-19, 1999, or prior thereto in Makati City, the accused, conspiring andconfederating together and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent togain and without the knowledge and consent of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone (PLDT),did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and use the international longdistance calls belonging to PLDT by conducting International Simple Resale (ISR), which is amethod of routing and completing international long distance calls using lines, cables, antenae,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 itsfacilities in the estimated amount of P20,370,651.92 to the damage and prejudice of PLDT, inthe said amount. Issue: Whether international long distance calls and the business of providing telecommunication ortelephone services are considered as personal properties subjected to theft. Held: In the instant case, the act of conducting ISR operations by illegally connectin g variousequipment or apparatus to private respondent PLDTs telephone system, through which petitioneris able to resell or re-route international long distance calls using respondent PLDTs facilitiesconstitutes all three acts of subtraction mentioned above. ACCORDINGLY, t h e m o t i o n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s GRANTED. T h e a s s a i l e d D e c i s i o n i s RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE . The Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the Orderissued by Judge Zeus C. Abrogar of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, which denied the Motion to Quash (With Motion to Defer Arraignment) for theft, is AFFIRMED. T h e c a s e i s remanded to the trial court and the Public Prosecutor of Makati City is hereby DIRECTED to amend the Amended Information to show that the property subject of the theft were servicesand business of the private offended party.