1-Laurel v Abrogar (2009)-Digest

1-Laurel v. Abrogar GR# 155076/ Jan. 13, 2009 (576 SCRA 41) FACTS PLDT sued Laurel, Laurel, for violation of Art 308 RPC (theft), allegedly using international long distance calls belonging to PLDT, without its knowledge and consent Laurel filed motion to quash information, contending “international calls are not personal property” PLDT: “calls & rig ht to conduct business, both capabl of appropriation, thus personal property 





ISSUE: WON the international calls as well as the business of providing telecommunication or telephone service are personal properties capable of appropriation and can be objects of theft. HELD: 









Case remanded to trial court. Crime is properly designated as theft. Prosecution directed to amend information, to clearly state the property subject of the theft are services & business of PLDT. Intl long distance calls are not personal properties. PLDT: o could not have acquired ownership over such calls, merely encodes, enhances, decodes, and transmits said calls o could not validly claim that such call were were taken without its consent. o Use of the facilities w/o w/o PLDT consent is the unlawful taking of the telephone services and business Only reqt for a personal property to be the object of theft under the RPC is that it be capable of appropr iation. iation. The word “take” in the RPC maybe committed through the use of the offender’s own hands as well as any mechanical device. Business of providing telecommunication telecommuni cation or telephone services is likewise personal property. Business is not enumerated as real property in Art 415. Thus it is personal property.