LAUREL vs.

ABROGAR Facts: On or about September 10-19, 1999, or prior thereto in

Makati City, the accused, conspiring andconfederating together and all of them
mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent togain and without the
knowledge and consent of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone (PLDT),did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and use the international
longdistance calls belonging to PLDT by conducting International Simple Resale
(ISR), which is amethod 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 itsfacilities in
the estimated amount of P20,370,651.92 to the damage and prejudice of PLDT, inthe
said amount. Issue: Whether international long distance calls and the business of
providing telecommunication ortelephone services are considered as personal
properties subjected to theft. Held: In the instant case, the act of conducting ISR
operations by illegally connectin g variousequipment or apparatus to private
respondent PLDTs telephone system, through which petitioneris able to resell or re-
route international long distance calls using respondent PLDTs
facilitiesconstitutes all three acts of subtraction mentioned above. ACCORDINGLY, t
h e m o t i o n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s GRANTED. T h e a s s a i l
e d D e c i s i o n i s RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE . The Decision of the Court of
Appeals affirming the Orderissued by Judge Zeus C. Abrogar of the Regional Trial
Court of Makati City, which denied the Motion to Quash (With Motion to Defer
Arraignment) for theft, is AFFIRMED. T h e c a s e i s remanded to the trial court
and the Public Prosecutor of Makati City is hereby DIRECTED to amend the Amended
Information to show that the property subject of the theft were servicesand
business of the private offended party.