Theft Beyond Tangibles: When Telecom Services Became Personal Property

In a landmark 2009 ruling, the Supreme Court En Banc settled a novel question in Philippine criminal law: can a telephone company's services and business be "stolen" under the Revised Penal Code? The case arose from charges of theft against Luis Marcos P. Laurel for engaging in International Simple Resale (ISR)—a method of routing international long distance calls through PLDT's facilities without authorization. The Court's answer reshaped the understanding of what counts as "personal property" in theft cases.

The Facts of the Case

Laurel was charged with theft under the Revised Penal Code for allegedly conducting ISR operations from September 10-19, 1999. The Amended Information stated that he conspired with others to "take, steal and use" international long distance calls belonging to PLDT, causing an estimated damage of P20,370,651.92.

Laurel moved to quash the information, arguing that the factual allegations did not constitute theft because international long distance calls and a telecommunications business are not personal property under the theft provision. The trial court denied his motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Laurel then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

The Issue

The central question was whether international long distance calls, and the business of providing telecommunication services, could be considered "personal property" subject to theft under the Revised Penal Code. The provision defines theft as the taking of "personal property of another" with intent to gain and without the owner's consent.

The Ruling: Broad Interpretation of Personal Property

The Supreme Court granted PLDT's motion for reconsideration and affirmed that theft charges could proceed—but with an important clarification.

Personal property is broadly defined. The Court held that the term "personal property" in the theft provision should be interpreted in the context of civil law. Under the Civil Code, all things which are or may be the object of appropriation are considered either real property or personal property. Since the Civil Code provides an exclusive enumeration of real properties, anything not included there—and capable of appropriation—is personal property.

Appropriation, not asportation, is key. The Court clarified that theft does not require "asportation" or carrying away. What matters is that the object is capable of "appropriation"—meaning it can be deprived from its lawful owner. The word "take" includes any act intended to transfer possession, which may be committed through mechanical devices, such as tampering with meters or diverting electricity.

Telephone calls are not owned by the telecom company. The Court made a crucial distinction: while telephone calls take the form of electrical energy, PLDT could not claim ownership over the calls themselves. PLDT merely encodes, augments, enhances, decodes, and transmits calls using its infrastructure. The company does not generate the calls; it provides the service that makes them possible.

But the service and business are property. What PLDT does own is its telephone service and its business of providing telecommunications. These are personal property capable of appropriation. The Court cited earlier jurisprudence recognizing that electricity, gas, and even interest in a business can be objects of theft. Engaging in ISR—which involves illegally connecting equipment to PLDT's system to resell or reroute calls—constitutes an act of "subtraction" penalized under the theft provision.

The Court's Directive

Because the Amended Information inaccurately described the stolen property as "international long distance calls" rather than PLDT's services and business, the Court remanded the case to the trial court. The prosecution was directed to amend the information to clearly state that the property subject of the theft were the services and business of PLDT. This amendment was not due to a mistake in charging the offense—theft was properly designated—but to ensure the accused was fully apprised of the charge against him.

Practical Takeaways

• Theft is not limited to tangible objects. Under Philippine law, intangible property—including services, business interests, and forces of nature like electricity—can be the subject of theft if they are capable of appropriation.
• Ownership matters. A company cannot claim theft of something it does not own. In this case, PLDT did not own the telephone calls themselves, but it did own the service and business that were unlawfully used.
• "Taking" is broader than physical carrying away. Using devices to divert, redirect, or tamper with property—such as jumper wires for electricity or ISR equipment for telecom services—constitutes "taking" for purposes of theft.
• Precise charging is essential. An information that misdescribes the property stolen may be subject to amendment, not dismissal, as long as the crime charged is correct and the accused is properly informed of the nature of the accusation.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.