6/16/2015

G.R.No.155076

ENBANC

LUISMARCOSP.LAUREL,G.R.No.155076
Petitioner,
Present:
Puno,C.J.,
Quisumbing,
YnaresSantiago,
Carpio,
versusAustriaMartinez,
Corona,
CarpioMorales,
Azcuna,
Tinga,
ChicoNazario,
Velasco,Jr.,
Nachura,
LeonardoDeCastro,and
Brion,JJ.
HON.ZEUSC.ABROGAR,
PresidingJudgeoftheRegional
TrialCourt,MakatiCity,Branch150,
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINESPromulgated:
&PHILIPPINELONGDISTANCE
TELEPHONECOMPANY,
Respondents.January13,2009

xx

RESOLUTION

YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:

OnFebruary27,2006,thisCourtsFirstDivisionrenderedjudgmentinthiscaseasfollows:

INLIGHTOFALLTHEFOREGOING,thepetitionisGRANTED.TheassailedOrders
of the Regional Trial Court and the Decision of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE.TheRegionalTrialCourtisdirectedtoissueanordergrantingthemotionofthepetitioner
toquashtheAmendedInformation.

[1]
SOORDERED.

Bywayofbriefbackground,petitionerisoneoftheaccusedinCriminalCaseNo.992425,
filedwiththeRegionalTrialCourtofMakatiCity,Branch150.TheAmendedInformationcharged
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/155076.htm

1/11

6/16/2015

G.R.No.155076

theaccusedwiththeftunderArticle308oftheRevisedPenalCode,committedasfollows:

OnoraboutSeptember1019,1999,orpriortheretoinMakatiCity,andwithinthejurisdictionof
thisHonorableCourt,theaccused,conspiringandconfederatingtogetherandallofthemmutually
helping and aiding one another, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the
Philippine Long Distance Telephone (PLDT), did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniouslytake,stealandusetheinternationallongdistancecallsbelongingtoPLDTbyconducting
InternationalSimpleResale(ISR),whichisamethodofroutingandcompletinginternationallong
distancecallsusinglines,cables,antenae,and/orairwavefrequencywhichconnectdirectlytothe
local or domestic exchange facilities of the country where the call is destined, effectively stealing
thisbusinessfromPLDTwhileusingitsfacilitiesintheestimatedamountofP20,370,651.92tothe
damageandprejudiceofPLDT,inthesaidamount.

[2]
CONTRARYTOLAW.

PetitionerfiledaMotiontoQuash(withMotiontoDeferArraignment),onthegroundthat
thefactualallegationsintheAmendedInformationdonotconstitutethefelonyoftheft.The trial
courtdeniedtheMotiontoQuashtheAmendedInformation,aswellpetitionerssubsequentMotion
forReconsideration.

Petitioners special civil action for certiorari was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. Thus,
petitionerfiledtheinstantpetitionforreviewwiththisCourt.

In the abovequoted Decision, this Court held that the Amended Information does not
containmaterialallegationschargingpetitionerwiththeftofpersonalpropertysinceinternational
longdistancecallsandthebusinessofprovidingtelecommunicationortelephoneservicesarenot
personalpropertiesunderArticle308oftheRevisedPenalCode.

Respondent Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) filed a Motion for
ReconsiderationwithMotiontoRefertheCasetotheSupremeCourtEnBanc.Itmaintainsthatthe
AmendedInformationchargingpetitionerwiththeftisvalidandsufficientthatitstatesthenames
of all the accused who were specifically charged with the crime of theft of PLDTs international
callsandbusinessofprovidingtelecommunicationortelephoneserviceonoraboutSeptember10
to19,1999inMakatiCitybyconductingISRorInternationalSimpleResalethatitidentifiesthe
internationalcallsandbusinessofprovidingtelecommunicationortelephoneserviceofPLDTas
thepersonalpropertieswhichwereunlawfullytakenbytheaccusedandthatitsatisfiesthetestof
sufficiencyasitenabledapersonofcommonunderstandingtoknowthechargeagainsthimand
thecourttorenderjudgmentproperly.

PLDTfurtherinsiststhattheRevisedPenalCodeshouldbeinterpretedinthecontextofthe
CivilCodesdefinitionofrealandpersonalproperty.TheenumerationofrealpropertiesinArticle
415oftheCivilCodeisexclusivesuchthatallthosenotincludedthereinarepersonalproperties.
Since Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code used the words personal property without
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/155076.htm

2/11

6/16/2015

G.R.No.155076

qualification,itfollowsthatallpersonalpropertiesasunderstoodinthecontextoftheCivilCode,
may be the subject of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. PLDT alleges that the
internationalcallsandbusinessofprovidingtelecommunicationortelephoneservicearepersonal
propertiescapableofappropriationandcanbeobjectsoftheft.

PLDT also argues that taking in relation to theft under the Revised Penal Code does not
requireasportation,thesolerequisitebeingthattheobjectshouldbecapableofappropriation.The
elementoftakingreferredtoinArticle308oftheRevisedPenalCodemeanstheactofdepriving
anotherofthepossessionanddominionofamovablecoupledwiththeintention,atthetimeofthe
taking, of withholding it with the character of permanency. There must be intent to appropriate,
which means to deprive the lawful owner of the thing. Thus, the term personal properties under
Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code is not limited to only personal properties which are
susceptibleofbeingseveredfromamassorlargerquantityandofbeingtransportedfromplaceto
place.

PLDT likewise alleges that as early as the 1930s, international telephone calls were in
existence hence, there is no basis for this Courts finding that the Legislature could not have
contemplatedthetheftofinternationaltelephonecallsandtheunlawfultransmissionandroutingof
electronicvoicesignalsorimpulsesemanatingfromsuchcallsbyunlawfullytamperingwiththe
telephonedeviceaswithinthecoverageoftheRevisedPenalCode.

Accordingtorespondent,theinternationalphonecallswhichareelectriccurrentsorsetsof
electricimpulsestransmittedthroughamedium,andcarryapatternrepresentingthehumanvoice
to a receiver, are personal properties which may be subject of theft. Article 416(3) of the Civil
Codedeemsforcesofnature(whichincludeselectricity)whicharebroughtunderthecontrolby
science,arepersonalproperty.

In his Comment to PLDTs motion for reconsideration, petitioner Laurel claims that a
telephonecallisaconversationonthephoneoracommunicationcarriedoutusingthetelephone.It
is not synonymous to electric current or impulses. Hence, it may not be considered as personal
property susceptible of appropriation. Petitioner claims that the analogy between generated
electricityandtelephonecallsismisplaced.PLDTdoesnotproduceorgeneratetelephonecalls.It
only provides the facilities or services for the transmission and switching of the calls. He also
insiststhatbusinessisnotpersonalproperty.Itisnotthebusinessthatisprotectedbuttherightto
carryonabusiness.Thisrightiswhatisconsideredasproperty.SincetheservicesofPLDTcannot
beconsideredasproperty,thesamemaynotbesubjectoftheft.

TheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG)agreeswithrespondentPLDTthatinternational
phonecallsandthebusinessorserviceofprovidinginternationalphonecallsaresubsumedinthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/155076.htm

3/11

6/16/2015

G.R.No.155076

enumeration and definition of personal property under the Civil Code hence, may be proper
[3]
[4]
subjectsoftheft.ItnotedthatthecasesofUnitedStatesv.Genato, United States v. Carlos
andUnitedStatesv.Tambunting,

[5]

whichrecognizedintangiblepropertieslikegasandelectricity

aspersonalproperties,aredeemedincorporatedinourpenallaws.Moreover,thetheftprovisionin
theRevisedPenalCodewasdeliberatelycouchedinbroadtermspreciselytobeallencompassing
andembracingevensuchscenariothatcouldnothavebeeneasilyanticipated.

AccordingtotheOSG,prosecutionunderRepublicAct(RA)No.8484ortheAccessDevice
RegulationsActof1998andRA8792ortheElectronicCommerceActof2000doesnotpreclude
prosecutionundertheRevisedPenalCodeforthecrimeoftheft.Thelatterembracesunauthorized
appropriationoruseofPLDTsinternationalcalls,serviceandbusiness,forpersonalprofitorgain,
to the prejudice of PLDT as owner thereof. On the other hand, the special laws punish the
surreptitious and advanced technical means employed to illegally obtain the subject service and
business.EvenassumingthatthecorrectindictmentshouldhavebeenunderRA8484,thequashal
of the information would still not be proper. The charge of theft as alleged in the Information
shouldbetakeninrelationtoRA8484becauseitistheelements,andnotthedesignationofthe
crime,thatcontrol.

Considering the gravity and complexity of the novel questions of law involved in this case, the
SpecialFirstDivisionresolvedtoreferthesametotheBanc.

WeresolvetogranttheMotionforReconsiderationbutremandthecasetothetrialcourtfor
properclarificationoftheAmendedInformation.

Article308oftheRevisedPenalCodeprovides:

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
propertyofanotherwithoutthelattersconsent.

TheelementsoftheftunderArticle308oftheRevisedPenalCodeareasfollows:(1)that
therebetakingofpersonalproperty(2)thatsaidpropertybelongstoanother(3)thatthetakingbe
donewithintenttogain(4)thatthetakingbedonewithouttheconsentoftheownerand(5)that
thetakingbeaccomplishedwithouttheuseofviolenceagainstorintimidationofpersonsorforce
uponthings.

Prior to the passage of the Revised Penal Code on December 8, 1930, the definition of the term
personal property in the penal code provision on theft had been established in Philippine
jurisprudence.ThisCourt,inUnitedStatesv.Genato,UnitedStatesv.Carlos,andUnitedStatesv.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/155076.htm

4/11

6/16/2015

G.R.No.155076

Tambunting, consistently ruled that any personal property, tangible or intangible, corporeal or
incorporeal,capableofappropriationcanbetheobjectoftheft.

Moreover,sincethepassageoftheRevisedPenalCodeonDecember8,1930, the term personal

propertyhashadagenerallyaccepteddefinitionincivillaw.InArticle335oftheCivilCodeof
Spain,personalpropertyisdefinedasanythingsusceptibleofappropriationandnotincludedinthe
foregoingchapter(notrealproperty).Thus,thetermpersonalpropertyintheRevisedPenalCode
should be interpreted in the context of the Civil Code provisions in accordance with the rule on
statutory construction that where words have been long used in a technical sense and have been
judiciallyconstruedtohaveacertainmeaning,andhavebeenadoptedbythelegislatureashaving
a certain meaning prior to a particular statute, in which they are used, the words used in such
statuteshouldbeconstruedaccordingtothesenseinwhichtheyhavebeenpreviouslyused.

[6]

In

fact, this Court used the Civil Code definition of personal property in interpreting the theft
provisionofthepenalcodeinUnitedStatesv.Carlos.

CognizantofthedefinitiongivenbyjurisprudenceandtheCivilCodeofSpaintothetermpersonal
property at the time the old Penal Code was being revised, still the legislature did not limit or
qualify the definition of personal property in the Revised Penal Code. Neither did it provide a
restrictivedefinitionoranexclusiveenumerationofpersonalpropertyintheRevisedPenalCode,
thereby showing its intent to retain for the term an extensive and unqualified interpretation.
Consequently,anypropertywhichisnotincludedintheenumerationofrealpropertiesunderthe
CivilCodeandcapableofappropriationcanbethesubjectoftheftundertheRevisedPenalCode.

Theonlyrequirementforapersonalpropertytobetheobjectoftheftunderthepenalcodeisthatit
be capable of appropriation. It need not be capable of asportation, which is defined as carrying
[7]
Jurisprudenceissettledthattotakeunderthetheftprovisionofthepenalcodedoesnot

away.

[8]
requireasportationorcarryingaway.

[9]

To appropriate means to deprive the lawful owner of the thing.

The word take in the Revised

PenalCodeincludesanyactintendedtotransferpossessionwhich,asheldintheassailedDecision,
maybecommittedthroughtheuseoftheoffendersownhands,aswellasanymechanicaldevice,
suchasanaccessdeviceorcardasintheinstantcase.Thisincludescontrollingthedestinationof
thepropertystolentodeprivetheowneroftheproperty,suchastheuseofametertampering,as
[10]
held in Natividad v. Court of Appeals,
use of a device to fraudulently obtain gas, as held in
UnitedStatesv.Tambunting,andtheuseofajumpertodivertelectricity,asheldinthecasesof
UnitedStatesv.Genato,UnitedStatesv.Carlos,andUnitedStatesv.Menagas.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/155076.htm

[11]
5/11

6/16/2015

G.R.No.155076

Asillustratedintheabovecases,appropriationofforcesofnaturewhicharebroughtundercontrol
by science such as electrical energy can be achieved by tampering with any apparatus used for
generatingormeasuringsuchforcesofnature,wrongfullyredirectingsuchforcesofnaturefrom
suchapparatus,orusinganydevicetofraudulentlyobtainsuchforcesofnature.Intheinstantcase,
petitioner was charged with engaging in International Simple Resale (ISR) or the unauthorized
routingandcompletingofinternationallongdistancecallsusinglines,cables,antennae,and/orair
wavefrequencyandconnectingthesecallsdirectlytothelocalordomesticexchangefacilitiesof
thecountrywheredestined.

As early as 1910, the Court declared in Genato that ownership over electricity (which an
international long distance call consists of), as well as telephone service, is protected by the
provisionsontheftofthePenalCode.ThepertinentprovisionoftheRevisedOrdinanceoftheCity
ofManila,whichwasinvolvedinthesaidcase,readsasfollows:

InjurytoelectricapparatusTappingcurrentEvidence.No person shalldestroy, mutilate, deface,

or otherwise injure or tamper with any wire, meter, or other apparatus installed or used for
generating,containing,conducting,ormeasuringelectricity,telegraphortelephoneservice,nortap
or otherwise wrongfully deflect or take any electric current from such wire, meter, or other
apparatus.

No person shall, for any purpose whatsoever, use or enjoy the benefits of any device by
meansofwhichhemayfraudulentlyobtainanycurrentofelectricityoranytelegraphortelephone
service and the existence in any building premises of any such device shall, in the absence of
satisfactory explanation, be deemed sufficient evidence of such use by the persons benefiting
thereby.

Itwasfurtherruledthatevenwithouttheaboveordinancetheactsofsubtractionpunishedtherein
arecoveredbytheprovisionsontheftofthePenalCodetheninforce,thus:

Evenwithoutthem(ordinance),therightoftheownershipofelectriccurrentissecuredby
articles517and518ofthePenalCodetheapplicationofthesearticlesincasesofsubtractionofgas,
afluidusedforlighting,andinsomerespectsresemblingelectricity,isconfirmedbytherulelaid
down in the decisions of the supreme court of Spain of January 20, 1887, and April 1, 1897,
construingandenforcingtheprovisionsofarticles530and531ofthePenalCodeofthatcountry,
articles517and518ofthecodeinforceintheseislands.

Theactsofsubtractioninclude:(a)tamperingwithanywire,meter,orotherapparatusinstalledor
used for generating, containing, conducting, or measuring electricity, telegraph or telephone
service (b) tapping or otherwise wrongfully deflecting or taking any electric current from such
wire,meter,orotherapparatusand(c)usingorenjoyingthebenefitsofanydevicebymeansof
whichonemayfraudulentlyobtainanycurrentofelectricityoranytelegraphortelephoneservice.

Intheinstantcase,theactofconductingISRoperationsbyillegallyconnectingvariousequipment
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/155076.htm

6/11

6/16/2015

G.R.No.155076

or apparatus to private respondent PLDTs telephone system, through which petitioner is able to
resellorrerouteinternationallongdistancecallsusingrespondentPLDTsfacilitiesconstitutesall
threeactsofsubtractionmentionedabove.

The business of providing telecommunication or telephone service is likewise personal property

which can be the object of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. Business may be
appropriatedunderSection2ofActNo.3952(BulkSalesLaw),hence,couldbeobjectoftheft:

Section 2. Any sale, transfer, mortgage, or assignment of a stock of goods, wares,

merchandise,provisions,ormaterialsotherwisethanintheordinarycourseoftradeandtheregular
prosecution of the business of the vendor, mortgagor, transferor, or assignor, or any sale, transfer,
mortgage,orassignmentofall,orsubstantiallyall,ofthebusinessortradetheretoforeconductedby
the vendor, mortgagor, transferor or assignor, or all, or substantially all, of the fixtures and
equipmentusedinandaboutthebusinessofthevendor,mortgagor,transferor,orassignor,shallbe
deemedtobeasaleandtransferinbulk,incontemplationoftheAct.xxx.

[12]

InStrocheckerv.Ramirez,

thisCourtstated:

With regard to the nature of the property thus mortgaged which is onehalf interest in the
business above described, such interest is a personal property capable of appropriation and not
included in the enumeration of real properties in article 335 of the Civil Code, and may be the
subjectofmortgage.

InterestinbusinesswasnotspecificallyenumeratedaspersonalpropertyintheCivilCodeinforce
atthetimetheabovedecisionwasrendered.Yet,interestinbusinesswasdeclaredtobepersonal
propertysinceitiscapableofappropriationandnotincludedintheenumerationofrealproperties.
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. 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, business should also be
classified as personal property. Since it is not included in the exclusive enumeration of real
propertiesunderArticle415,itisthereforepersonalproperty.

[13]

As can be clearly gleaned from the above disquisitions, petitioners acts constitute theft of
respondent PLDTs business and service, committed by means of the unlawful use of the latters
facilities.Inthisregard,theAmendedInformationinaccuratelydescribestheoffensebymakingit
appear that what petitioner took were the international long distance telephone calls, rather than
respondentPLDTsbusiness.

A perusal of the records of this case readily reveals that petitioner and respondent PLDT
extensively discussed the issue of ownership of telephone calls. The prosecution has taken the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/155076.htm

7/11

6/16/2015

G.R.No.155076

position that said telephone calls belong to respondent PLDT. This is evident from its Comment
whereitdefinedtheissueofthiscaseaswhetherornottheunauthorizeduseorappropriationof
PLDT international telephone calls, service and facilities, for the purpose of generating personal
[14]
profitorgainthatshouldhaveotherwisebelongedtoPLDT,constitutestheft.

In discussing the issue of ownership, petitioner and respondent PLDT gave their respective
explanationsonhowatelephonecallisgenerated.

[15]
Foritspart,respondentPLDTexplainsthe

processofgeneratingatelephonecallasfollows:

38.Theroleoftelecommunicationcompaniesisnotlimitedtomerelyprovidingthemedium
(i.e. the electric current) through which the human voice/voice signal of the caller is transmitted.
Beforethehumanvoice/voicesignalcanbesotransmitted,atelecommunicationcompany,usingits
facilities,mustfirstbreakdownordecodethehumanvoice/voicesignalintoelectronicimpulsesand
subjectthesametofurtheraugmentationandenhancements.Onlyaftersuchprocessofconversion
will the resulting electronic impulses be transmitted by a telecommunication company, again,
through the use of its facilities. Upon reaching the destination of the call, the telecommunication
companywillagainbreakdownordecodetheelectronicimpulsesbacktohumanvoice/voicesignal
before the called party receives the same. In other words, a telecommunication company both
converts/reconverts the human voice/voice signal and provides the medium for transmitting the
same.

39. Moreover, in the case of an international telephone call, once the electronic impulses
originatingfromaforeigntelecommunicationcompanycountry(i.e.Japan)reachesthePhilippines
through a local telecommunication company (i.e. private respondent PLDT), it is the latter which
decodes,augmentsandenhancestheelectronicimpulsesbacktothehumanvoice/voicesignaland
providesthemedium(i.e.electriccurrent)toenablethecalledpartytoreceivethecall.Thus,itisnot
true that the foreign telecommunication company provides (1) the electric current which transmits
thehumanvoice/voicesignalofthecallerand(2)theelectriccurrentforthecalledpartytoreceive
saidhumanvoice/voicesignal.

40. Thus, contrary to petitioner Laurels assertion, once the electronic impulses or electric
current originating from a foreign telecommunication company (i.e. Japan) reaches private
respondentPLDTsnetwork,itisprivaterespondentPLDTwhichdecodes,augmentsandenhances
theelectronicimpulsesbacktothehumanvoice/voicesignalandprovidesthemedium(i.e.electric
current)toenablethecalledpartytoreceivethecall.Without private respondent PLDTs network,
[16]
thehumanvoice/voicesignalofthecallingpartywillneverreachthecalledparty.

IntheassailedDecision,itwasconcededthatinmakingtheinternationalphonecalls,thehuman
voice is converted into electrical impulses or electric current which are transmitted to the party
called.Atelephonecall,therefore,iselectricalenergy.ItwasalsoheldintheassailedDecisionthat
intangible property such as electrical energy is capable of appropriation because it may be taken
andcarriedaway.ElectricityispersonalpropertyunderArticle416(3)oftheCivilCode,which
[17]
enumeratesforcesofnaturewhicharebroughtundercontrolbyscience.

Indeed, while it may be conceded that international long distance calls, the matter alleged to be
stolenintheinstantcase,taketheformofelectricalenergy,itcannotbesaidthatsuchinternational
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/155076.htm

8/11

6/16/2015

G.R.No.155076

long distance calls were personal properties belonging to PLDT since the latter could not have
acquired ownership over such calls. PLDT merely encodes, augments, enhances, decodes and
transmitssaidcallsusingitscomplexcommunicationsinfrastructureandfacilities.PLDTnotbeing
the owner of said telephone calls, then it could not validly claim that such telephone calls were
taken without its consent. It is the use of these communications facilities without the consent of
PLDTthatconstitutesthecrimeoftheft,whichistheunlawfultakingofthetelephoneservicesand
business.

Therefore, the business of providing telecommunication and the telephone service are
personalpropertyunderArticle308oftheRevisedPenalCode,andtheactofengaginginISRis
anactofsubtractionpenalizedundersaidarticle.However,theAmendedInformationdescribesthe
thingtakenas,internationallongdistancecalls,andonlylatermentionsstealingthebusinessfrom
PLDT as the manner by which the gain was derived by the accused. In order to correct this
inaccuracyofdescription,thiscasemustberemandedtothetrialcourtandtheprosecutiondirected
to amend the Amended Information, to clearly state that the property subject of the theft are the
servicesandbusinessofrespondentPLDT.Parenthetically,thisamendmentisnotnecessitatedbya
mistake in charging the proper offense, which would have called for the dismissal of the
informationunderRule110,Section14andRule119,Section19oftheRevisedRulesonCriminal
Procedure. To be sure, the crime is properly designated as one of theft. The purpose of the
amendmentissimplytoensurethattheaccusedisfullyandsufficientlyapprisedofthenatureand
causeofthechargeagainsthim,andthusguaranteedofhisrightsundertheConstitution.

ACCORDINGLY, the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The assailed Decision

dated February 27, 2006 is RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 68841 affirming the Order issued by Judge Zeus C. Abrogar of the
RegionalTrialCourtofMakatiCity,Branch150,whichdeniedtheMotiontoQuash(WithMotion
to Defer Arraignment) in Criminal Case No. 992425 for theft, is AFFIRMED. The case is
remanded to the trial court and the Public Prosecutor of Makati City is hereby DIRECTED to
amendtheAmendedInformationtoshowthatthepropertysubjectofthetheftwereservicesand
businessoftheprivateoffendedparty.

SOORDERED.

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/155076.htm

9/11

6/16/2015

G.R.No.155076

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBINGANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZRENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

CONCHITACARPIOMORALESADOLFOS.AZCUNA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

DANTEO.TINGAMINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTROARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/155076.htm

10/11

6/16/2015

G.R.No.155076

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the
conclusionsintheaboveResolutionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedto
thewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
Rollo,p.728.
[2]
Id.at5758.
[3]
15Phil.170(1910).
[4]
21Phil.553(1911).
[5]
41Phil.364(1921).
[6]
Krivenkov.RegisterofDeeds,79Phil.461(1947).
[7]
Peoplev.Mercado,65Phil.665(1938).
[8]
Id.Duranv.Tan,85Phil476(1950).
[9]
Regalado,CriminalLawConspectus(2000ed.),p.520.
[10]
G.R.No.L14887,January31,1961,1SCRA380.
[11]
11N.E.2d403(1937).
[12]
44Phil.933(1922).
[13]
IITolentino,CommentariesandJurisprudenceontheCivilCodeofthePhilippines26(1992ed.).
[14]
Rollo,p.902.
[15]
Id.at781783832837872,874877.
[16]
Id.at875877.
[17]
Supranote13.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/jan2009/155076.htm

11/11