Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Laurel vs. Abogar
Laurel vs. Abogar
Laurel vs. Abogar
_______________
** Per Special Order No. 545, dated December 16, 2008, signed by Chief
Justice Reynato S. Puno, designating Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario to
replace Associate Justice Renato C. Corona, who is on leave.
* EN BANC.
Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Carpio, Chico-Nazario** and
Leonardo-De Castro, JJ., concur.
42
Revised Penal Code. Business may be appropriated under Section claim that such telephone calls were taken without its consent. It
2 of Act No. 3952 (Bulk Sales Law), hence, could be object of theft. is the use of these communications facilities without the consent
Civil Law; Property; Interest in business was declared to be of PLDT that constitutes the crime of theft, which is the unlawful
personal property since it is capable of appropriation and not taking of the telephone services and business.
included in the enumeration of real properties.—Interest in Same; Same; Same; The business of providing telecommunication
business was not specifically enumerated as personal property in and the telephone service are personal property under Article 308
the Civil Code in force at the time the above decision was of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and the act of engaging in
rendered. Yet, interest in business was declared to be personal International Simple Resale (ISR) is an act of “subtraction”
property penalized under said article.—The business of providing
telecommunication and the telephone service are personal
43
property under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, and the act
of engaging in ISR
since it is capable of appropriation and not included in the
44
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 is an act of “subtraction” penalized under said article. However,
property. Business is likewise not enumerated as personal the Amended Information describes the thing taken as,
property under the Civil Code. Just like interest in business, “international long distance calls,” and only later mentions
however, it may be appropriated. Following the ruling in “stealing the business from PLDT” as the manner by which the
Strochecker v. Ramirez, 44 Phil. 933 (1922), business should also gain was derived by the accused. In order to correct this
be classified as personal property. Since it is not included in the inaccuracy of description, this case must be remanded to the trial
exclusive enumeration of real properties under Article 415, it is court and the prosecution directed to amend the Amended
therefore personal property. Information, to clearly state that the property subject of the theft
Same; Same; Electricity; Electricity is personal property under are the services and business of respondent PLDT.
Article 416(3) of the Civil Code, which enumerates “forces of nature Parenthetically, this amendment is not necessitated by a mistake
which are brought under control by science.”—It was conceded in charging the proper offense, which would have called for the
that in making the international phone calls, the human voice is dismissal of the information under Rule 110, Section 14 and Rule
converted into electrical impulses or electric current which are 119, Section 19 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. To be
transmitted to the party called. A telephone call, therefore, is sure, the crime is properly designated as one of theft. The purpose
electrical energy. It was also held in the assailed Decision that of the amendment is simply to ensure that the accused is fully
intangible property such as electrical energy is capable of and sufficiently apprised of the nature and cause of the charge
appropriation because it may be taken and carried away. against him, and thus guaranteed of his rights under the
Electricity is personal property under Article 416 (3) of the Civil Constitution.
Code, which enumerates “forces of nature which are brought CORONA, J., Separate Opinion:
under control by science.” Civil Law; Property; Telecommunication Industry; While
Same; Same; Telecommunication Industry; It is the use of telephone calls take the form of electrical energy, it cannot be said
these telecommunications facilities without the consent of that such telephone calls were personal properties belonging to
Philippine Long Distance Telephone (PLDT) that constitutes the Philippine Long Distance Telephone (PLDT) since the latter could
crime of theft, which is the unlawful taking of the telephone not have acquired ownership over such calls.—The question of
services and business.—While it may be conceded that whether PLDT creates the phone calls or merely encodes and
“international long distance calls,” the matter alleged to be stolen transmits them is a question of fact that can be answered by
in the instant case, take the form of electrical energy, it cannot be science. I agree with Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago that,
said that such international long distance calls were personal while telephone calls “take the form of electrical energy, it cannot
properties belonging to PLDT since the latter could not have be said that such [telephone] calls were personal properties
acquired ownership over such calls. PLDT merely encodes, belonging to PLDT since the latter could not have acquired
augments, enhances, decodes and transmits said calls using its ownership over such calls. PLDT merely encodes, augments,
complex communications infrastructure and facilities. PLDT not enhances, decodes and transmits said calls using its complex
being the owner of said telephone calls, then it could not validly infrastructure and facilites.”
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b5a3fe777c4313fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/29 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b5a3fe777c4313fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/29
3/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576 3/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576
TINGA, J., Concurring Opinion: property capable of appropriation. Since physically a telephone
call is in the form of an electric signal, our jurisprudence
Civil Law; Telecommunication Industry; Criminal Law; Theft; acknowledging that electricity is personal property which may be
The coursing of long distance calls through International Simple stolen through theft is applicable.
Resale (ISR) is not per se illegal.—The coursing of long distance
calls through ISR is not per se illegal. For example, the Federal Same; Same; Same; Same; Just because the phone calls are
Communications Commission of the United States is authorized transmitted using the facilities and services of Philippine Long
by statute to approve long-distance calling through ISR for calls Distance Telephone (PLDT), it does not follow that PLDT is the
made to certain countries, as it has done so with nations such as owner of such calls.—The legal paradigm that treats PLDT as
Australia, France and Japan. However, as indicated by the Office akin to a common carrier should alert against any notion that it is
of the owner of the “long distance overseas calls” alleged as having
been stolen in the Amended Information. More precisely, it
45 merely
46
the Solicitor General’s support for the subject prosecution, there
was no authority yet for the practice during the time of the
subject incidents. transmits these calls, owned by another, to the intended recipient.
Applying the common carrier paradigm, when a public transport
Criminal Law; Theft; The crime of theft is penalized under system is contracted to transport goods or persons to a
Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).—The crime of theft destination, the transport company does not acquire ownership
is penalized under Article 308 of the RPC. From that provision, over such goods or such persons, even though it is in custody of
we have long recognized the following as the elements of theft: (1) the same for the duration of the trip. Just because the phone calls
that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property are transmitted using the facilities and services of PLDT, it does
belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; not follow that PLDT is the owner of such calls.
(4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and
(5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of a decision of the
against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. Supreme Court.
Electricity; While electricity is merely the medium through The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
which the telephone calls are carried, it is sufficiently analogous to Salonga, Hernandez & Mendoza for petitioner.
allow the courts to consider such calls as possessing similar Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala and Cruz and
physical characteristics as electricity.—Are “international long Kapunan, Tamano, Villodolid & Associates for respondent
distance calls” personal property? The assailed Decision did not PLDT.
believe so, but I agree with the present Resolution that they are.
The Court now equates telephone calls to electrical energy. To be
RESOLUTION
clear, telephone calls are not exactly alike as pure electricity.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
They are sound waves (created by the human voice) which are
On February 27, 2006, this Court’s First Division
carried by electrical currents to the recipient on the other line.
rendered judgment in this case as follows:
While electricity is merely the medium through which the
telephone calls are carried, it is sufficiently analogous to allow the “IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is
courts to consider such calls as possessing similar physical GRANTED. The assailed Orders of the Regional Trial Court and
characteristics as electricity. the Decision of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET
Same; Property; Telecommunication Industry; Theft; Since ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court is directed to issue an order
physically a telephone call is in the form of an electric signal, our granting the motion of the petitioner to quash the Amended
jurisprudence acknowledging that electricity is personal property Information.
which may be stolen through theft is applicable.—The assailed SO ORDERED.”1
Decision conceded that when a telephone call was made, “the
By way of brief background, petitioner is one of the
human voice [is] converted into electronic impulses or electrical
accused in Criminal Case No. 99-2425, filed with the
current.” As the Resolution now correctly points out, electricity or
Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 150. The
electronic energy may be the subject of theft, as it is personal
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b5a3fe777c4313fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/29 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b5a3fe777c4313fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/29
3/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576 3/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576
Amended Information charged the accused with theft petitioner with theft is valid and sufficient; that it states
under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as the names of all the accused who were specifically charged
follows: with the crime of theft of PLDT’s international calls and
business of providing telecommunication or telephone
“On or about September 10-19, 1999, or prior thereto in Makati service on or about September 10 to 19, 1999 in Makati
City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the City by conducting ISR or Interna-
accused, conspiring
_______________
_______________
2 Id., at pp. 57-58.
1 Rollo, p. 728.
48
47
and confederating together and all of them mutually helping and tional Simple Resale; that it identifies the international
aiding one another, with intent to gain and without the calls and business of providing telecommunication or
knowledge and consent of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone telephone service of PLDT as the personal properties which
(PLDT), did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously were unlawfully taken by the accused; and that it satisfies
take, steal and use the international long distance calls belonging the test of sufficiency as it enabled a person of common
to PLDT by conducting International Simple Resale (ISR), which understanding to know the charge against him and the
is a method of routing and completing international long distance court to render judgment properly.
calls using lines, cables, antenae, and/or air wave frequency which PLDT further insists that the Revised Penal Code
connect directly to the local or domestic exchange facilities of the should be interpreted in the context of the Civil Code’s
country where the call is destined, effectively stealing this definition of real and personal property. The enumeration
business from PLDT while using its facilities in the estimated of real properties in Article 415 of the Civil Code is
amount of P20,370,651.92 to the damage and prejudice of PLDT, exclusive such that all those not included therein are
in the said amount. personal properties. Since Article 308 of the Revised Penal
CONTRARY TO LAW.”2 Code used the words “personal property” without
qualification, it follows that all “personal properties” as
Petitioner filed a “Motion to Quash (with Motion to understood in the context of the Civil Code, may be the
Defer Arraignment),” on the ground that the factual subject of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal
allegations in the Amended Information do not constitute Code. PLDT alleges that the international calls and
the felony of theft. The trial court denied the Motion to business of providing telecommunication or telephone
Quash the Amended Information, as well as petitioner’s service are personal properties capable of appropriation
subsequent Motion for Reconsideration. and can be objects of theft.
Petitioner’s special civil action for certiorari was PLDT also argues that “taking” in relation to theft
dismissed by the Court of Appeals. Thus, petitioner filed under the Revised Penal Code does not require
the instant petition for review with this Court. “asportation,” the sole requisite being that the object
In the above-quoted Decision, this Court held that the should be capable of “appropriation.” The element of
Amended Information does not contain material allegations “taking” referred to in Article 308 of the Revised Penal
charging petitioner with theft of personal property since Code means the act of depriving another of the possession
international long distance calls and the business of and dominion of a movable coupled with the intention, at
providing telecommunication or telephone services are not the time of the “taking,” of withholding it with the
personal properties under Article 308 of the Revised Penal character of permanency. There must be intent to
Code. appropriate, which means to deprive the lawful owner of
Respondent Philippine Long Distance Telephone the thing. Thus, the term “personal properties” under
Company (PLDT) filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code is not limited to only
Motion to Refer the Case to the Supreme Court En Banc. It personal properties which are “susceptible of being severed
maintains that the Amended Information charging
from a mass or larger quantity and of being transported couched in broad terms precisely to be all-encompassing
from place to place.” and embracing even such scenario that could not have been
PLDT likewise alleges that as early as the 1930s, easily anticipated.
international telephone calls were in existence; hence,
there is no basis for this Court’s finding that the _______________
Legislature could not have contemplated the theft of
international telephone calls and the unlawful 3 15 Phil. 170 (1910).
transmission and routing of electronic voice signals or 4 21 Phil. 553 (1911).
impulses emanating from such calls by unlawfully 5 41 Phil. 364 (1921).
tampering with the telephone device as within the coverage
50
of the Revised Penal Code.
49
According to the OSG, prosecution under Republic Act
(RA) No. 8484 or the Access Device Regulations Act of 1998
According to respondent, the “international phone calls” and RA 8792 or the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 does
which are “electric currents or sets of electric impulses not preclude prosecution under the Revised Penal Code for
transmitted through a medium, and carry a pattern the crime of theft. The latter embraces unauthorized
representing the human voice to a receiver,” are personal appropriation or use of PLDT’s international calls, service
properties which may be subject of theft. Article 416(3) of and business, for personal profit or gain, to the prejudice of
the Civil Code deems “forces of nature” (which includes PLDT as owner thereof. On the other hand, the special
electricity) which are brought under the control by science, laws punish the surreptitious and advanced technical
are personal property. means employed to illegally obtain the subject service and
In his Comment to PLDT’s motion for reconsideration, business. Even assuming that the correct indictment
petitioner Laurel claims that a telephone call is a should have been under RA 8484, the quashal of the
conversation on the phone or a communication carried out information would still not be proper. The charge of theft
using the telephone. It is not synonymous to electric as alleged in the Information should be taken in relation to
current or impulses. Hence, it may not be considered as RA 8484 because it is the elements, and not the designation
personal property susceptible of appropriation. Petitioner of the crime, that control.
claims that the analogy between generated electricity and Considering the gravity and complexity of the novel
telephone calls is misplaced. PLDT does not produce or questions of law involved in this case, the Special First
generate telephone calls. It only provides the facilities or Division resolved to refer the same to the Banc.
services for the transmission and switching of the calls. He We resolve to grant the Motion for Reconsideration but
also insists that “business” is not personal property. It is remand the case to the trial court for proper clarification of
not the “business” that is protected but the “right to carry the Amended Information.
on a business.” This right is what is considered as property. Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Since the services of PLDT cannot be considered as
“Art. 308. Who are liable for theft.—Theft is committed by
“property,” the same may not be subject of theft.
any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against,
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) agrees with
or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take
respondent PLDT that “international phone calls and the
personal property of another without the latter’s consent.”
business or service of providing international phone calls”
are subsumed in the enumeration and definition of The elements of theft under Article 308 of the Revised
personal property under the Civil Code hence, may be Penal Code are as follows: (1) that there be taking of
proper subjects of theft. It noted that the cases of United personal property; (2) that said property belongs to
States v. Genato,3 United States v. Carlos4 and United another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4)
States v. Tambunting,5 which recognized intangible that the taking be done without the consent of the owner;
properties like gas and electricity as personal properties, and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of
are deemed incorporated in our penal laws. Moreover, the violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon
theft provision in the Revised Penal Code was deliberately things.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b5a3fe777c4313fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/29 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b5a3fe777c4313fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/29
3/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576 3/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576
tion of real properties under Article 415, it is therefore impulses back to human voice/voice signal before the called party
personal property.13 receives the same. In other words, a telecommunication company
As can be clearly gleaned from the above disquisitions, both converts/reconverts the human voice/voice signal and
petitioner’s acts constitute theft of respondent PLDT’s provides the medium for transmitting the same.
business and service, committed by means of the unlawful 39. Moreover, in the case of an international telephone call,
use of the latter’s facilities. In this regard, the Amended once the electronic impulses originating from a foreign
Information inaccurately describes the offense by making it telecommunication company country (i.e. Japan) reaches the
appear that what petitioner took were the international Philippines through a local telecommunication company (i.e.
long distance telephone calls, rather than respondent private respondent PLDT), it is the latter which decodes,
PLDT’s business. augments and enhances the electronic impulses back to the
A perusal of the records of this case readily reveals that human voice/voice signal and provides the medium (i.e. electric
petitioner and respondent PLDT extensively discussed the current) to enable the called party to receive the call. Thus, it is
issue of ownership of telephone calls. The prosecution has not true that the foreign telecommunication company provides (1)
taken the position that said telephone calls belong to the electric current which transmits the human voice/voice signal
respondent PLDT. This is evident from its Comment where of the caller and (2) the electric current for the called party to
it defined the issue of this case as whether or not “the receive said human voice/voice signal.
unauthorized use or appropriation of PLDT international 40. Thus, contrary to petitioner Laurel’s assertion, once the
telephone calls, service and facilities, for the purpose of electronic impulses or electric current originating from a foreign
generating personal profit or gain that should have telecommunication company (i.e. Japan) reaches private
otherwise belonged to PLDT, constitutes theft.”14 respondent PLDT’s network, it is private respondent PLDT which
In discussing the issue of ownership, petitioner and decodes, augments and enhances the electronic impulses back to
respondent PLDT gave their respective explanations on the human voice/voice signal and provides the medium (i.e.
how a telephone call is generated.15 For its part, electric current) to enable the called party to receive the call.
respondent PLDT explains the process of generating a Without private respondent PLDT’s network, the human
telephone call as follows: voice/voice signal of the calling party will never reach the called
party.”16
“38. The role of telecommunication companies is not limited to
merely providing the medium (i.e. the electric current) through In the assailed Decision, it was conceded that in making
which the human voice/voice signal of the caller is transmitted. the international phone calls, the human voice is converted
Before the human voice/voice signal can be so transmitted, a into electrical impulses or electric current which are
telecommunication company, using its facilities, must first break transmitted to the party called. A telephone call, therefore,
down or decode the human voice/voice signal into electronic is electrical energy. It was also held in the assailed
impulses and subject the same to further augmentation and Decision that intangible property such as electrical energy
enhancements. Only after such process of conversion will the is capable of appropriation because it may be taken and
resulting electronic impulses be transmitted by a carried away. Electricity is personal property under Article
telecommunication company, again, through the use of its 416 (3) of the Civil Code, which enumerates “forces of
facilities. Upon reaching the destination of the call, the nature which are brought under control by science.”17
telecommunication company will again break down or decode the Indeed, while it may be conceded that “international
electronic long distance calls,” the matter alleged to be stolen in the
instant case, take the form of electrical energy, it cannot be
_______________ said that such international long distance calls were
personal properties belonging to PLDT since
13 II Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the
Philippines 26 (1992 ed.).
_______________
14 Rollo, p. 902.
15 Id., at pp. 781-783; 832-837; 872, 874-877. 16 Id., at pp. 875-877.
56
17 Supra note 13.
57
the latter could not have acquired ownership over such SO ORDERED.
calls. PLDT merely encodes, augments, enhances, decodes
and transmits said calls using its complex communications Puno (C.J.), Quisumbing, Carpio, Austria-Martinez,
infrastructure and facilities. PLDT not being the owner of Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr.,
said telephone calls, then it could not validly claim that Nachura, Leonardo-De Castro and Brion, JJ., concur.
such telephone calls were taken without its consent. It is Corona, J., See Separate Opinion.
the use of these communications facilities without the Tinga, J., Please see Concurring Opinion.
consent of PLDT that constitutes the crime of theft, which
SEPARATE OPINION
is the unlawful taking of the telephone services and
CORONA, J.:
business.
The bone of contention in this case is: who owns the
Therefore, the business of providing telecommunication
telephone calls that we make? If respondent Philippine
and the telephone service are personal property under
Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) can claim
Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, and the act of
engaging in ISR is an act of “subtraction” penalized under ownership over them, then petitioner Luis Marcos P.
Laurel (Laurel) can be charged with theft of such telephone
said article. However, the Amended Information describes
calls under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. If PLDT
the thing taken as, “international long distance calls,” and
does not own them, then the crime of theft was not
only later mentions “stealing the business from PLDT” as
committed and Laurel cannot be charged with this crime.
the manner by which the gain was derived by the accused.
One view is that PLDT owns the telephone calls because
In order to correct this inaccuracy of description, this case
it is responsible for creating such calls. The opposing view
must be remanded to the trial court and the prosecution
is that it is the caller who owns the phone calls and PLDT
directed to amend the Amended Information, to clearly
merely encodes and transmits them.
state that the property subject of the theft are the services
and business of respondent PLDT. Parenthetically, this The question of whether PLDT creates the phone calls
or merely encodes and transmits them is a question of
amendment is not necessitated by a mistake in charging
the proper offense, which would have called for the fact that can be answered by science. I agree with Justice
Consuelo Ynares-Santiago that, while telephone calls “take
dismissal of the information under Rule 110, Section 14
the form of electrical energy, it cannot be said that such
and Rule 119, Section 19 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
[telephone] calls were personal properties belonging to
Procedure. To be sure, the crime is properly designated as
PLDT since the latter could not have acquired ownership
one of theft. The purpose of the amendment is simply to
over such calls. PLDT merely encodes, augments,
ensure that the accused is fully and sufficiently apprised of
enhances, decodes and transmits said calls using its
the nature and cause of the charge against him, and thus
guaranteed of his rights under the Constitution. complex infrastructure and facilites.”
In my view, it is essential to differentiate between the
ACCORDINGLY, the motion for reconsideration is
GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated February 27, 2006 conversation of a caller and recipient of the call, and the
telephone service that
is RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 68841 affirming the 59
Order issued by Judge Zeus C. Abrogar of the Regional
Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 150, which denied the
Motion to Quash (With Motion to Defer Arraignment) in made the call possible. Undoubtedly, any conversation
Criminal Case No. 99-2425 for theft, is AFFIRMED. The between or among individuals is theirs alone. For example,
case is remanded to the trial court and the Public if two children use two empty cans and a string as a
Prosecutor of Makati City is hereby DIRECTED to amend makeshift play phone, they themselves create their “phone
the Amended Information to show that the call.” However, if individuals separated by long distances
use the telephone and have a conversation through the
58 telephone lines of the PLDT, then the latter owns the
service which made possible the resulting call. The
conversation, however, remains protected by our privacy
property subject of the theft were services and business of
laws.
the private offended party.
Accordingly, I vote to GRANT the motion for or she would dial the ISR number indicated, and would be
reconsideration. connected to an ISR operator. The caller would then supply
the ISR operator with the PIN, and the operator would
CONCURRING OPINION then connect the caller with the recipient of the call in the
Philippines through the IPL lines. Because the IPL lines
TINGA, J.:
bypass the IGF, PLDT as operator of the IGF would have
I do not have any substantive disagreements with the no way of knowing that the long-distance call was being
ponencia. I write separately to flesh out one of the key
made.4
issues behind the Court’s present disposition—whether the Apparently, the coursing of long distance calls through
Philippine Long Distance Company (PLDT) can validly
ISR is not per se illegal. For example, the Federal
claim ownership over the telephone calls made using its Communications Commission of the United States is
telephone services. As the subject Amended Information authorized by statute to approve long-distance calling
had alleged that petitioners had “unlawfully and through ISR for calls made to certain countries, as it has
feloniously take, steal and use the international long done so with nations such as Australia, France and Japan.5
distance calls belonging to PLDT,” said information could
However, as indicated by the Office of the Solicitor
have been sustained only if its premise were accepted that General’s support for the subject prosecution, there was no
PLDT indeed owned those phone calls.
authority yet for the practice during the time of the subject
I. incidents.
Taking issue with this scheme, PLDT filed a complaint
It is best to begin with an overview of the facts that against Baynet “for network fraud.”6 A search warrant
precede this case. Among many other services, PLDT issued caused the seizure of various equipment used in
operates an International Gateway Facility (IGF),1 through Baynet’s operations. However, after the inquest
which pass phone calls originating from overseas to local investigation, the State Prosecutor, on 28 January 2000,
PLDT phones. However, there exists a method of routing issued a Resolution finding probable cause “for theft under
and completing international long distance calls called Article 308” of the RPC and for violating Presidential
International Simple Resale (ISR), which makes use of Decree No. 401, a law which criminalizes the installation of
International Private Leased Lines (IPL). Because IPL a telephone connection without the prior authority from the
lines may be linked to switching equipment connected to a PLDT, or the tampering of its
PLDT phone line, it becomes
_______________
_______________
2 Supra note 1 at p. 251.
1 Other telecommunication companies authorized to operate an IGF 3 Id., at p. 255.
are Globe Telecommunications (Globe), Eastern Telecoms (ETPI), Digitel 4 Id., at p. 252.
Communications (Digitel) and Bayan Telecommunications Company 5 See International Bureau International Simple Resale,
(Bayantel). http://www.fcc.gov/ib/pd/pf/isr.html (Last visited, 6 September 2007).
6 Supra note 1, at p. 253.
60
61
“On or about September 10-19, 1999, or prior thereto, in specifically designed against tampering with the phone
Makati City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, service operations of PLDT. Facially, it would appear that
the accused, conspiring and confederating together and all of prosecution of petitioner under any of these other laws
them mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent to would have been eminently more appropriate than the
gain and without the knowledge and consent of the Philippine present recourse, which utilizes the same provision used to
Long Distance Telephone (PLDT), did then and there willfully, penalize pickpockets.
unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and use the international But since the State has preferred to pursue this more
long distance calls belonging to PLDT by conducting International cumbersome theory of the case, we are now belabored to
Simple Resale (ISR), which is a method of routing and completing analyze whether the facts
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 9 “In the Philippines, Congress has not amended the Revised Penal
its facilities in the estimated amount of P20,370,651.92 to the Code to include theft of services or theft of business as felonies. Instead, it
damage and prejudice of PLDT, in the said amount.”8 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
Prior to arraignment, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash access device means any card, plate, code, account number, electronic
on the ground that the factual allegations in the Amended serial number, personal identification number and other
Information do not constitute the felony of theft under telecommunication services, equipment or instrumentalities-identifier or
Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. He claimed, among other means of account access that can be used to obtain money, goods,
others, that telephone calls with the use of PLDT telephone services or any other thing of value or to initiate a transfer of funds other
lines, whether domestic or international, belong to the than a transfer originated solely by paper instrument. Among the
persons making the call, not to PLDT. The RTC denied the prohibited acts enumerated in Section 9 of the law are the acts of
Motion to Quash, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the obtaining money or anything of value through the use of an access device,
denial of the motion. However, in its Decision now sought with intent to defraud or intent to gain and fleeing thereafter; and of
to be reconsidered the Court reversed the lower courts and effecting transactions with one or more access devices issued to another
directed the quashal of the Amended Information. 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.
II.
However, the petitioner is not charged of violation of R.A. 8484.
Significantly, a prosecution under the law shall be without prejudice to
Preliminarily, it should be noted that among the myriad
any liability for violation of any provisions of the Revised Penal Code
possible crimes with which petitioner could have been
inclusive of theft under Rule 308 of the Revised Penal Code and estafa
charged, he was charged with theft, as defined in the RPC
under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, if an individual steals
provision which has remained in its vestal 1930 form. Even
a credit card and uses the same to obtain services, he is liable of the
our earlier Decision now as-
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 private
7 Id., at p. 254. complainant. The petitioner is not charged of estafa before the RTC in the
Amended Information.” Laurel v. Abrogar, G.R. 155706, 27 February
8 Id., at p. 255. Emphasis not mine.
2006, 483 SCRA 243.
62
63
of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to Resolution now correctly points out, electricity or electronic
another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) energy may be the subject of theft, as it is personal
that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; property capable of appropriation. Since physically a
and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of telephone call is in the form of an electric signal, our
violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon jurisprudence acknowledging that electricity is personal
things.10 property which may be stolen through theft is applicable.
In analyzing whether the crime of theft had been III.
committed given the allegations in this case, it is against I now turn to the issue of the legal ownership of the
these five elements that the facts must be tested. We can “international long distance calls,” or telephone calls in
agree outright that the “taking” alleged in this case was general for that matter. An examination of the physical
accomplished without the use of violence against or characteristics of telephone calls is useful for our purposes.
intimidation of persons or force upon things. It can also be As earlier stated, telephone calls take on the form of
conceded for now that the element of animo lucrandi, or electrical current, though they are distinguished from
intent to gain, does not bear materiality to our present ordinary electricity in that they are augmented by the
discussion and its existence may be presumed for the human voice which is transmitted from one phone to
moment. another. A material inquiry is how these calls are
Let us discuss the remaining elements of theft as they generated in the first place?
relate to the Amended Information, and its contentious It bears significance that neither the RTC nor the Court
allegation that petitioner did “unlawfully and feloniously of Appeals concluded that PLDT owns the telephone calls.
take, steal and use the international long distance calls Instead, they concluded that PLDT owns the telephone
belonging to PLDT.” service, a position that is intellectually plausible, unlike
Are “international long distance calls” personal the contention that PLDT owns the actual calls themselves.
property? The assailed Decision did not believe so, but I Yet PLDT is willing to make the highly controversial claim
agree with the present Resolution that they are. The Court that it owns the phone calls, despite the absence of any
now equates telephone calls to electrical energy. To be reliable or neutral evidence to that effect.
clear, telephone calls are not exactly alike as pure PLDT argues that it does not merely transmit the
electricity. They are sound waves (created by the human telephone calls but “actually creates them.” The claim
voice) which are carried by electrical currents to the should beggar belief, if only for the underlying implication
recipient on the other line.11 While electricity is merely the that if PLDT “creates” telephone calls, such calls can come
medium through which the telephone calls are carried, it is into existence without the participation of a caller, or a
sufficiently analogous to allow the courts to human voice for that matter.
_______________ _______________
10See e.g. People v. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, 8 June 2004, 431 12 Id., at p. 273.
SCRA 284, 291, citing People v. Sison, 322 SCRA 345, 363-364 (2000).
65
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 Let us examine the analysis of the American law
http://areaonline.com/phone/telworks.html. professors Benjamin, Lichtman and Shelanski in their
textbook Telecommunications Law and Policy. In
64
illustrating the “telephone system vocabulary,” they offer
the following discussion:
consider such calls as possessing similar physical
“Consumers have in their homes standard equipment (like
characteristics as electricity.
telephones) capable of encoding and receiving voice
The assailed Decision conceded that when a telephone
communications. Businesses have similar basic equipment. This
call was made, “the human voice [is] converted into
equipment is what insiders call customer premises equipment,
electronic impulses or electrical current.”12 As the
which is abbreviated ‘CPE’. The Telecommunications Act of 1996
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b5a3fe777c4313fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/29 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b5a3fe777c4313fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/29
3/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576 3/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576
defines CPE as ‘equipment employed on the premises of a person creation, by law, by donation, by testate and intestate
(other than a carrier) to originate, route or terminate succession, by prescription, and in consequence of certain
telecommunications.’ 47 U.S.C. §153(14). This category, as contracts, by tradition.14 Under which mode of acquisition
implemented by the FCC, includes not only basic telephones but could PLDT deemed as acquiring ownership over the
also answering machines, fax machines, modems, and even telephone calls? We can exclude outright, without need of
private branch exchange (PBX) equipment (in which a large discussion, such modes as testate and intestate succession,
entity maintains, in effect, its own switch-board to various prescription, and tradition. Neither can the case be made
internal extensions).”13 that telephone calls are susceptible to intellectual creation.
Donation should also be ruled out, since a donation must be
It has been suggested that PLDT owns the phone calls accepted in writing by the donee in order to become valid,
because it is the entity that encodes or decodes such calls and that obviously cannot apply as to telephone calls.
even as they originate from a human voice. Yet it is Can telephone calls be acquired by “occupation”?
apparent from the above discussion that the device that According to Article 713, properties which are acquired by
encodes or decodes telephone calls is the CPE, more occupation are “things appropriable by nature which are
particularly the telephone receiver. It is the telephone without an owner, such as animals that are the object of
receiver, which is in the possession of the telephone user, hunting and fishing, hidden treasure and abandoned
which generates the telephone call at the initiative of the movables.” It is not possible to establish a plausible
user. Now it is known from experience that while PLDT analogy between telephone calls and “animals that are the
does offer its subscribers the use of telephone receivers object of hunting or fishing,” or of “hidden treasure” and of
marked with the PLDT logo, subscribers are free to go to “abandoned movables.”
Abenson and purchase a telephone receiver manufactured Is it possible that PLDT somehow acquired ownership over
by an entity other than PLDT, such as Sony or Bell the phone calls by reason of law? No law vesting ownership
Siemens or Panasonic. Since such is the case, it cannot be over the phone calls to PLDT or any other local telephone
accurately said that the encoding or decoding of Philippine service provider is in existence.
telephone calls is done through the exclusive use of PLDT All these points demonstrate the strained reasoning
equipment, because the telephone receivers we use are behind the claim that PLDT owns the international long
invariably purchased directly by the very same people who distance calls. Indeed, applying the traditional legal
call or receive the phone calls. paradigm that governs the regulation of
It likewise appears from the particular facts of this case telecommunications companies, it becomes even clearer
that some, if not many of the phone calls alleged to have that PLDT cannot validly assert such ownership.
been stolen from PLDT were generated by calls originating Telephone companies have
not from the Philippines, but from
_______________
_______________
14 See Article 712, Civil Code.
13 S. Benjamin, D. Lichtman & H. Shelanski, Telecommunications Law
and Policy (2001 ed.), at p. 613. 67
66
historically been regulated as common carriers.15 The 1936
Public Service Act classifies wire or wireless
Japan. Assuming that the telephone company exclusively communications systems as a “public service,” along with
generates the phone calls, those calls originating from other common carriers.16 In the United States, telephone
Japan were not generated by PLDT, but by KDDI, NTT, providers were expressly decreed to operate as common
Japan Telecom, Verizon Japan, and all the other long carriers in the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910,17 utilizing an
distance telephone service providers in Japan. analogy typically akin to the regulation of railroads.18
If PLDT were indeed the owner of the telephone calls, Under the Public Service Act, a telephone
then it should be able to demonstrate by which mode did it communication system is classified as a “public service,”
acquire ownership under the Civil Code. Under that Code, not a “common carrier.” That fact might seem to imply that
ownership may be acquired by occupation, by intellectual
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b5a3fe777c4313fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/29 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b5a3fe777c4313fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/29
3/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576 3/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 576
the two phrases are mutually exclusive, despite the fact the transport company does not acquire ownership over
that the Public Service Act does categorize as belonging to such goods or such persons, even though it is in custody of
“public service,” “any common carrier, railroad, street the same for the duration of the trip. Just because the
railway, subway motor vehicle, either for freight or phone calls are transmitted using the facilities and services
passenger, or both, with or without fixed route and of PLDT, it does not follow that PLDT is the owner of such
whatever may be its classification, freight or carrier service calls.
of any class, express service, steamboat, or steamship, or On this score, the distinction must be made between a
steamship line, pontines, ferries and water craft, engaged telephone company such as PLDT, and a power company
in the transportation of passengers or freight or both.”19 such as Meralco. Both companies are engaged in the
It may be correct to say that under the Civil Code, a business of distributing electrical energy to end-users. In
telephone system is not a common carrier, the civil law the case of Meralco, it is pure electricity, while in PLDT’s
definition of such term limited to “persons, corporations, case, it is an electronic signal converted out of an
firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or indispensable element which is the human voice and
transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water or transformed back to the original voice at the point of
air...”20 Still, it cannot be denied that the weight of reception. Neither Meralco nor PLDT created the electronic
authorities have accepted that the traditional regulation energy it transmits. But in Meralco’s case, it purchases the
regime of electricity from a generating company such as the National
Power Corporation, and it may thus be considered as the
_______________ owner of such electricity by reason of the sale. PLDT’s case
is different, as it does not purchase the electronic signals it
15 See Globe Telecom, Inc. v. National Telecommunications transmits. These signals are created by the interaction
Commission, G.R. No. 143964, 26 July 2004, 435 SCRA 110, 121; citing K. between the human voice and the electrical current.
Middleton, R. Trager & B. Chamberlin, The Law of Public Communication Indeed, the logical consequences should it be held that
(5th ed., 2001), at p. 578; in turn citing 47 U.S.C Secs. 201, 202. PLDT owns these “long distance overseas calls” are quite
16 See Sec. 13(b), Public Service Act, as amended (1936). perilous. PLDT, as owner of these calls (or any telephone
17 See H. Zuckman, R. Corn-Revere, R. Frieden, C. Kennedy, Modern calls made for that matter),
Communications 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
21 See Globe Telecom, Inc. v. National Telecommunications
understood, the concept of ‘common carrier’ under Article 1732 [of the
Civil Code] may be seen to coincide neatly with the notion of ‘public Commission, G.R. No. 143964, 26 July 2004, 435 SCRA 110, 121, citing K.
service,’ under the Public Service Act (Commonwealth Act No. 1416, as Middleton, R. Trager & B. Chamberlin, The Law of Public Communication
amended) which at least partially supplements the law on common (5th ed., 2001), at p. 578, in turn citing 47 U.S.C. Secs. 201, 202.
carriers set forth in the Civil Code.”
69
20 See Article 1732, Civil Code.
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170b5a3fe777c4313fc003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/29