DOCTRINE: The general rule is that, only movable properties which have physical or material existence

and susceptible of occupation by another are proper objects of theft. Only those movable properties
which can be taken and carried from the place they are found are proper subjects of theft.
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: Baynet Co., Ltd. Is being sued for network fraud. Laurel is the board member and corporate
secretary of Baynet. 2 other filipinos and two japanese composed the board. (Baynet) sells "Bay Super
Orient Card" which uses an alternative calling patterns called International Simple Resale (ISR).
ISR is a method of routing and completing international long distance calls using International Private
Leased Lines (IPL), cables, antenna or air wave or frequency, which connect directly to the local or
domestic exchange facilities of the terminating country (the country where the call is destined). The
operator of an ISR is able to evade payment of access, termination or bypass charges and accounting
rates, as well as compliance with the regulatory requirements of the NTC. Thus, the ISR operator offers
international telecommunication services at a lower rate, to the damage and prejudice of legitimate
operators like PLDT.
Search warrants were issued against baynet through PLDT's complaint. The seach was followed by an
inquest investigation. The prosecutor found probable cause for THEFT and filed Information. After
preliminary investigation the information was amended to include Laurel and the other members of the
board for THEFT using ISR.

Accused Laurel filed a "Motion to Quash (with Motion to Defer Arraignment)" on the groundS that RPC
does not punish use of ISR, The telephone calls belong to the person calling not to PLDT, and that
no personal property was stolen from PLDT. There is no crime when there is no law
punishing the crime

Issue: whether or not international telephone calls using Bay Super Orient Cards through the
telecommunication services provided by PLDT for such calls, or, in short, PLDT’s business of providing
said telecommunication services, are proper subjects of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal
Code

Held: RTC denied MQ MR denied. Petition for Certiorari with CA, dismissed. SC, granted.The petition is
meritorious.
An information or complaint must state explicitly and directly every act or omission constituting an
offense and must allege facts establishing the conduct. the Amended Information does not contain
material allegations charging the petitioner of theft of personal property under Article 308 of
the Revised Penal Code.
The international telephone calls placed by Bay Super Orient Card holders, the
telecommunication services provided by PLDT and its business of providing said services are
not personal properties under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code defines theft as follows:
Art. 308. Who are liable for theft.– Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain
but without violence, against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take
personal property of another without the latter’s consent.
For one to be guilty of theft the accused must have an intent to steal (animus furandi)
personal property, meaning the intent to deprive another of his ownership/lawful possession
of personal property which intent is apart from and concurrently with the general criminal
intent which is an essential element of a felony of dolo (dolus malus).
An information or complaint for simple theft must allege the following elements:
(a) the taking of personal property;
(b) the said property belongs to another;
(c) the taking be done with intent to gain; and
(d) the taking be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation of person/s or force upon
things.
"Personal property" under the Revised Penal Code must be considered in tandem with the
word "take" in the law. The statutory definition of "taking" and movable property indicates that,
clearly, not all personal properties may be the proper subjects of theft. The general rule is that, only
movable properties which have physical or material existence and susceptible of occupation
by another are proper objects of theft. only those movable properties which can be taken
and carried from the place they are found are proper subjects of theft.
Intangible properties such as rights and ideas are not subject of theft because the same cannot be
"taken" from the place it is found and is occupied or appropriated. movable properties under Article 308
of the Revised Penal Code should be distinguished from the rights or interests to which they relate. A
naked right existing merely in contemplation of law, although it may be very valuable to the person
who is entitled to exercise it, is not the subject of theft or larceny. Such rights or interests are
intangible and cannot be "taken" by another.
There is "taking" of personal property, and theft is consummated when the offender unlawfully acquires
possession of personal property even if for a short time; or if such property is under the dominion and
control of the thief. The taker, at some particular amount, must have obtained complete and absolute
possession and control of the property adverse to the rights of the owner or the lawful possessor
thereof.t is not necessary that the property be actually carried away out of the physical
possession of the lawful possessor or that he should have made his escape with it. Neither
asportation nor actual manual possession of property is required. Constructive possession of the thief of
the property is enough. The essence of the element is the taking of a thing out of the
possession of the owner without his privity and consent and without animus revertendi.

gas and electricity are susceptible of taking since they can be appropritated.
Business and services cannot be taken thus, not a subject of theft. They both have different definitions.
RPC could not have included human voice or ISR in theft since such was not existing at that time.

Respondent PLDT does not acquire possession, much less, ownership of the voices of the telephone
callers or of the electronic voice signals or current emanating from said calls. The human voice and the
electronic voice signals or current caused thereby are intangible and not susceptible of possession,
occupation or appropriation by the respondent PLDT or even the petitioner, for that matter. PLDT
merely transmits the electronic voice signals through its facilities and equipment.
Congress did not amend the definition of theft rather they passed RA 8484 and 8792.

Republic Act No. 8484, otherwise known as the Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998, on February
11, 1998. Under the law, an access device means any card, plate, code, account number, electronic
serial number, personal identification number and other telecommunication services, equipment or
instrumentalities-identifier or other means of account access that can be used to obtain money, goods,
services or any other thing of value or to initiate a transfer of funds other than a transfer originated
solely by paper instrument. Among the prohibited acts enumerated in Section 9 of the law are the acts
of obtaining money or anything of value through the use of an access device, with intent to defraud or
intent to gain and fleeing thereafter; and of effecting transactions with one or more access devices
issued to another 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. However, the petitioner is not charged
of violation of R.A. 8484.
Significantly, a prosecution under the law shall be without prejudice to any liability for
violation of any provisions of the Revised Penal Code inclusive of theft under Rule 308 of the
Revised Penal Code and estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, if an individual
steals a credit card and uses the same to obtain services, he is liable of the 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 complainant.
The petitioner is not charged of estafa before the RTC in the Amended Information.
Section 33 of Republic Act No. 8792, Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 provides:
Sec. 33. Penalties.— The following Acts shall be penalized by fine and/or imprisonment, as follows:
a) Hacking or cracking which refers to unauthorized access into or interference in a computer
system/server or information and communication system; or any access in order to corrupt, alter, steal,
or destroy using a computer or other similar information and communication devices, without the
knowledge and consent of the owner of the computer or information and communications system,
including the introduction of computer viruses and the like, resulting on the corruption, destruction,
alteration, theft or loss of electronic data messages or electronic documents shall be punished by a
minimum fine of One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) and a maximum commensurate to the
damage incurred and a mandatory imprisonment of six (6) months to three (3) years.