PLDT vs Alvarez

G.R. No. 179408

March 05, 2014

FACTS:
- PLDT o ers telecommunications services in and between the Philippines and other
countries. It its regular investigations to prevent or stop network fraud, a test call was
conducted by PLDT which thereafter lead to the discovery that several lines are installed in
the address to which herein respondents were subscribed, allowing them to place a call
without having to pass PLDT’s system. A search warrant was issued for the crimes of theft
and violation of PD 401 and thereafter a complaint was led against the respondents.
- Petitioner argued that respondents are engaged in a form of network fraud which amounts to
theft under the RPC
- Respondents counter argued that no probable cause for the crime of theft and stating that
PLDT’s telephone services are not personal properties which have physical or material
existence and susceptible for occupation by another

ISSUE:
- WON PLDT’s telephone services is a personal property

RULING:
- YES
- PLDT’s telephone services are personal properties contemplated under the crime of theft
because the Court En Banc reversed the CA’s decision. The Court ruled that even prior to
the passage of the RPC, it is well- settled that “any personal property, tangible or intangible,
corporeal or incorporeal, capable of appropriation can be the object of theft.” Moreover, the
Civil Code of Spain de ned personal property as “anything susceptible of appropriation and
not included in the foregoing chapter (not real property).” It is the use of PLDT’s facilities
without its consent that constitutes the crime of theft.
- Indeed, while it may be conceded that international long distance calls, the matter alleged to
be stolen xxx, take the form of electrical energy, it cannot be said that such international
long distance calls were personal properties belonging to PLDT since the latter could not
have acquired ownership over such calls. PLDT merely encodes, augments, enhances,
decodes and transmits said calls using its complex communications infrastructure and
facilities. PLDT not being the owner of said telephone calls, then it could not validly claim
that such telephone calls were taken without its consent. It is the use of these
communications facilities without the consent of PLDT that constitutes the crime of theft,
which is the unlawful taking of the telephone services and business.
- Therefore, the business of providing telecommunication and the telephone service are
personal property under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, and the act of engaging in
ISR is an act of subtraction penalized under said article.
ff
fi
fi