Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 236 views

    Laurel v. Abrogar

    Uploaded by

    Rence
    The Supreme Court ruled that the crime committed against PLDT by Baynet and its officers was properly designated as theft. While international long distance calls themselves cannot be stolen, the unauthorized use of PLDT's telecommunication services and business is considered theft under the law. The Court remanded the case to the trial court and directed prosecutors to amend the information to clearly state that the property subject to theft were PLDT's services and business, not the calls themselves. PLDT merely transmits calls but does not own or take possession of them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Laurel v. Abrogar

    Uploaded by

    Rence
    236 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the crime committed against PLDT by Baynet and its officers was properly designated as theft. While international long distance calls themselves cannot be stolen, the unauthorized use of PLDT's telecommunication services and business is considered theft under the law. The Court remanded the case to the trial court and directed prosecutors to amend the information to clearly state that the property subject to theft were PLDT's services and business, not the calls themselves. PLDT merely transmits calls but does not own or take possession of them.

    Original Description:

    LAUREL V ABROGRAR DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the crime committed against PLDT by Baynet and its officers was properly designated as theft. While international long distance calls themselves cannot be stolen, the unauthorized use of PLDT's telecommunication services and business is considered theft under the law. The Court remanded the case to the trial court and directed prosecutors to amend the information to clearly state that the property subject to theft were PLDT's services and business, not the calls themselves. PLDT merely transmits calls but does not own or take possession of them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    236 views2 pages

    Laurel v. Abrogar

    Uploaded by

    Rence
    The Supreme Court ruled that the crime committed against PLDT by Baynet and its officers was properly designated as theft. While international long distance calls themselves cannot be stolen, the unauthorized use of PLDT's telecommunication services and business is considered theft under the law. The Court remanded the case to the trial court and directed prosecutors to amend the information to clearly state that the property subject to theft were PLDT's services and business, not the calls themselves. PLDT merely transmits calls but does not own or take possession of them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    G.R. No.

    155076

    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:

     Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) is the holder of a


    legislative franchise to render local and international telecommunication servi ces
    under Republic Act No. 7082, which states that the petitioner is authorized to
    establish, operate, manage, lease, maintain and purchase telecommunication
    systems, including transmitting, receiving and switching stations, for both
    domestic and international calls.
     PLDT alleged Baynet Co., Ltd. (Baynet) for network fraud through the use
    of International Simple Resale (ISR) composed of telephone lines and other
    auxiliary equipment to connect an international long distance call from Japan to
    any part of the Philippines, and make it appear as a call originating from Metro
    Manila which enables the petitioner to evade payment of access, termination or
    bypass charges and accounting rates, as well as compliance with the regulatory
    requirements of the NTC.
     Records at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also revealed that
    Baynet was not authorized to provide international or domestic long distance
    telephone service in the country.
     Two search warrants issued by the RTC of Makati, Branch 147, National Bureau
    of Investigation (NBI) agents searched its office at the 7th Floor, SJG Building,
    Kalayaan Avenue, Makati City on November 8, 1999.
     State Prosecutor Ofelia L. Calo conducted an inquest investigation and issued
    a Resolution on January 28, 2000, finding probable cause for theft under Article
    308 of the Revised Penal Code and Presidential Decree No. 401 against the
    respondents.
     On February 8, 2000, State Prosecutor Calo charged the officers of Baynet
    with theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
     The following are officers of Baynet: Yuji Hijioka, a Japanese national (chairman
    of the board of directors); Gina C. Mukaida, a Filipina (board member and
    president); Luis Marcos P. Laurel, a Filipino (board member and corporate
    secretary); Ricky Chan Pe, a Filipino (board member and treasurer); and
    Yasushi Ueshima, also a Japanese national (board member).

    Issue:

    Whether or not PLDT’s business of providing said telecommunication services, are


    proper subjects of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code?
    Ruling:

    Yes. The 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.

    International long distance calls are not personal properties. PLDT:

     could not have acquired ownership over such calls,


     merely encodes, enhances, decodes, and transmits said calls
     could not validly claim that such call were taken without its consent.

    The use of the facilities of PLDT without the consent of the company is the unlawful
    taking of the telephone services and business.

    The only requirement for a personal property to be the object of theft under the Revised
    Penal Code is that it be capable of appropriation. 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 or telephone services is likewise personal


    property. Business is not enumerated as real property in Art 415. Thus it is considered
    as personal property.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy