LAUREL V.

ABROGAR
(G.R. No. 155076, February 27, 2006)

FACTS:
PLDT filed a complaint for network fraud alleging that Baynet Co. stoled international long distance calls
belonging to PLDT by conducting International Simple Resale [“ISR”], 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 of the country where the call is destined,
effectively stealing this business from PLDT while using its facilities. Thereafter, NBI searched Baynet’s
office and arrested 4 people. Seized in the premises were numerous equipment and devices used in its ISR
activities.

After investigation and judicial proceedings, the RTC found those arrested persons and Baynet’s board of
directors guilty of theft for taking the international long distance calls belonging to PLDT by conducting ISR.
Accused Laurel petitioned with the CA but was dismissed, with the CA ruling that the personal property
allegedly stolen per the information is the “business of pldt.”

Hence, the present action. Laurel contends that the CA erred in ruling that the personal property allegedly
stolen per the information is not the “international long distance calls” but the “business of pldt.”

ISSUE:
W/N international telephone calls or PLDT’s business of providing telecommunication services are proper
subjects of theft under Art 308, RPC

RULING:
NO.

RATIO:
The information against Laurel does not contain material allegations charging him of theft of personal
property.

The international telephone calls placed through Baynet’s ISR and PLDT’s business of providing
telecommunication services are not personal properties under Art 308, RPC. In the context of the RPC,
only those personal properties which can be taken and carried from the place they are found are proper
subjects of theft.

While the Court agrees that electrical energy and gas are proper subjects of theft, they cannot be equated
with business or services provided by entrepreneurs to the public. Energy and gas, per jurisprudence, may
be seen and felt and may thus be taken, carried away, and appropriated. Meanwhile, businesses cannot be
“taken” or “occupied.”

Moreover, it bears notice that the Congress has not amended the RPC to include theft of services or theft of
business as felonies. Instead, it approved RA 8484 or the Access Devices Regulation Act which prohibits
acts such as obtaining money or anything of value through the use of an access device with intent to
defraud or intent to gain and fleeing thereafter; effecting transactions with one or more access devices
issued to another person or persons to receive payment or any other thing of value; and conspiracy to
commit access devices fraud. However, Laurel is not charged with violating RA 8484.