LUIS MARCOS P. LAUREL vs HON. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

LUIS MARCOS P. LAUREL vs HON. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

G.R. No. 155076
January 13, 2009

FACTS:

Luis Laurel (Laurel) was charged willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and use the 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, antenae, 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.

PLDT claimed such the “international phone calls” which are “electric currents or sets of electric impulses transmitted through a medium, and carry a pattern representing the human voice to a receiver,” are personal properties under Art. 416(3) Forces of nature which are brought under control by science

Laurel claims that the telephone conversation is not synonymous to electric current or impulses hence it is not susceptible of appropriation, thus cannot be considered a personal property.

ISSUE:

Is Laurel Guilty of Theft of Personal Property?

RULING:

The only requirement for a personal property to be the object of theft under the Penal Code is that it be capable of appropriation. The act of conducting International Simple Resale (ISR) operations by illegally connecting various equipment or apparatus to private respondent Philippine Long Distance Telephone’s

(PLDT’s) telephone system, through which petitioner is able to resell or re-route international long distance calls using respondent Philippine Long Distance Telephone’s (PLDT’s) facilities constitutes all three acts of subtraction.

Article 414 of the Civil Code provides that all things which are or may be the object of appropriation are considered either real property or personal property. Though Business is likewise not enumerated as personal property under the Civil Code. Just like interest in business, however, it may be appropriated.

Following the ruling in Strochecker v. Ramirez, 44 Phil.933 (1922), business should also be classified as personal property. Since the Business of providing telecommunication service is not included in the exclusive enumeration of real properties under Article 415, it is therefore personal property.