GR 155076; (February, 2006) (Digest)
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 COMPANY, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Luis Marcos P. Laurel, a corporate officer of Baynet Co., Ltd., was charged with theft under the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that Baynet, through International Simple Resale (ISR) operations, utilized PLDT telephone lines and equipment to route international calls from Japan to the Philippines. This scheme bypassed PLDT’s International Gateway Facility, enabling Baynet to avoid paying access and termination charges. PLDT claimed substantial revenue losses from this bypass activity. The prosecution asserted that the unauthorized use of PLDT’s lines and facilities constituted the taking of personal property (electrical current/impulses) with intent to gain.
Laurel filed a Motion to Quash, arguing that the facts alleged did not constitute the crime of theft. He contended that electrical energy, telephone lines, and the use of a franchise are intangible and not “personal property” subject to apoderamiento (taking) as required under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. The Regional Trial Court denied the motion, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the acts attributed to the petitioner, as alleged in the Information, constitute the crime of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition and ordered the dismissal of the criminal case for theft. The Court’s ruling hinged on the essential element of “taking” (apoderamiento) in theft, which requires the offender’s acquisition of physical control and dominion over a movable property belonging to another, to the exclusion of the owner. The allegations in the Information described only the unauthorized use or tapping of PLDT’s telephone lines and system. The Court clarified that while the use of electrical energy or telephone service without the owner’s consent may be punishable under other laws (like Anti-Wiretapping or special telecommunications laws), it does not satisfy the specific element of “taking” in theft. The law on theft contemplates a deprivation of the physical property itself from the owner. Here, PLDT was not deprived of its lines, cables, or equipment; it was merely denied the revenue for their legitimate use. The alleged fraudulent use of service, without the material taking of the wires or the electrical current itself, falls outside the scope of the crime of theft as defined in the Revised Penal Code. Consequently, the facts alleged did not constitute an indictable offense for theft.