GR 155076; (January, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 155076, January 13, 2009
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 was one of the accused in Criminal Case No. 99-2425 for theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. The Amended Information alleged that the accused, on or about September 10-19, 1999, conspired to unlawfully take, steal, and use international long distance calls belonging to the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) by conducting International Simple Resale (ISR), thereby stealing this business from PLDT. Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Amended Information on the ground that its factual allegations do not constitute the felony of theft. The Regional Trial Court denied the motion, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals. On February 27, 2006, the Supreme Court’s First Division granted the petition, reversed the lower courts, and directed the trial court to quash the Amended Information, holding that international long distance calls and the business of providing telecommunication services are not personal properties under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. Respondent PLDT filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was referred to the Supreme Court En Banc.
ISSUE
Whether the Amended Information sufficiently charges the crime of theft, specifically whether the “international long distance calls” and the “business of providing telecommunication or telephone service” of PLDT constitute “personal property” capable of being the subject of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court En Banc granted the Motion for Reconsideration, set aside its Decision dated February 27, 2006, and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision which upheld the trial court’s denial of the Motion to Quash. The Court held that the term “personal property” in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code is not limited to tangible objects but includes any property capable of appropriation, whether tangible or intangible, consistent with jurisprudence predating the Revised Penal Code (United States v. Genato, United States v. Carlos, United States v. Tambunting) and the definition under the Civil Code. The Court ruled that the business and services of PLDT, which generate income, are personal property susceptible of theft. However, the Court found the Amended Information inaccurately described the property taken as “international long distance calls.” To correct this, the case was remanded to the trial court with the directive that the Public Prosecutor amend the Amended Information to clearly state that the property subject of the theft are the services and business of PLDT. This amendment is intended to fully apprise the accused of the charge against him, not to correct a mistake in charging the proper offense, as the crime is properly designated as theft.