The business of providing telecommunication and the telephone service itself are personal properties capable of appropriation and can be the subject of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code; the act of International Simple Resale (ISR), which involves unauthorized routing of international calls using a telecommunication company's facilities, constitutes unlawful taking (subtraction) of such business and service.

The case arose from allegations that the petitioner, Luis Marcos P. Laurel, along with others, engaged in International Simple Resale (ISR). ISR is a method of routing and completing international long distance calls using a telecommunication company's lines, cables, antennae, and/or air wave frequency, connecting directly to local or domestic exchange facilities, thereby bypassing the official international gateway of the telecommunication company and depriving it of revenue.

• Petitioner Luis Marcos P. Laurel was accused, along with others, in an Amended Information for theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
• The Amended Information alleged that on or about September 10-19, 1999, in Makati City, the accused, conspiring together, with intent to gain and without PLDT's consent, took, stole, and used international long distance calls belonging to PLDT by conducting International Simple Resale (ISR).
• ISR was described as a method of routing and completing international long distance calls using lines, cables, antennae, and/or air wave frequency connecting directly to local or domestic exchange facilities of the destination country, effectively stealing PLDT's business while using its facilities.
• The estimated amount of damage to PLDT was P20,370,651.92.
• The petitioner's act of conducting ISR operations allegedly involved illegally connecting various equipment or apparatus to PLDT's telephone system to resell or re-route international long distance calls using PLDT's facilities.

• The factual allegations in the Amended Information do not constitute the felony of theft.
• International long distance calls and the business of providing telecommunication or telephone services are not personal properties under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
• A telephone call is a conversation or communication and is not synonymous with electric current or impulses, and thus cannot be considered personal property susceptible of appropriation.
• PLDT does not produce or generate telephone calls; it only provides facilities or services for their transmission and switching.
• "Business" is not personal property; it is the "right to carry on a business" that is considered property, and PLDT's services cannot be considered "property" subject to theft.

• The Amended Information charging petitioner with theft is valid and sufficient, identifying the accused, the crime, the location, the date, and the property stolen (international calls and business of providing telecommunication service of PLDT).
• The Revised Penal Code's use of "personal property" should be interpreted in the context of the Civil Code, where all property not enumerated as real property is personal property; thus, international calls and the business of providing telecommunication service are personal properties capable of appropriation and can be objects of theft.
• "Taking" in theft under the Revised Penal Code does not require "asportation" but only "appropriation," meaning depriving another of possession and dominion with intent to withhold it permanently.
• International phone calls, as electric currents or impulses, are "forces of nature" brought under control by science, which Article 416(3) of the Civil Code deems personal property.
• The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) supported PLDT, arguing that international phone calls and the business/service of providing them are personal property under the Civil Code and thus subjects of theft, citing jurisprudence on theft of gas and electricity.
• The OSG also argued that prosecution under special laws like RA 8484 (Access Device Regulations Act) or RA 8792 (Electronic Commerce Act) does not preclude prosecution for theft under the Revised Penal Code.

• Whether international long distance calls are personal property subject to theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether the business of providing telecommunication or telephone service is personal property subject to theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether the act of International Simple Resale (ISR) constitutes "taking" of personal property under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether the Amended Information sufficiently charged the crime of theft.

• The Supreme Court En Banc granted PLDT's Motion for Reconsideration, set aside the First Division's decision, and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision which upheld the trial court's denial of the motion to quash.
• The Court ruled that while "international long distance calls" as described in the Amended Information (taking the form of electrical energy) are not personal properties belonging to PLDT (as PLDT merely processes and transmits them, not owns them), the business of providing telecommunication and the telephone service itself are personal properties under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
• The term "personal property" in the Revised Penal Code is interpreted broadly, consistent with Civil Code definitions, to include anything susceptible of appropriation not classified as real property. Business, like an interest in business, is capable of appropriation and is not an enumerated real property, thus it is personal property.
• The act of engaging in ISR, which involves illegally connecting to PLDT's system to re-route international calls, constitutes "subtraction" or unlawful taking of PLDT's telephone services and business. "Taking" in theft does not require asportation (carrying away) but merely appropriation.
• The Court found the Amended Information inaccurately described the stolen property as "international long distance calls" instead of PLDT's business and service. It directed the case to be remanded to the trial court for the prosecution to amend the Amended Information to clearly state that the property subject of the theft was the services and business of PLDT, to ensure the accused is fully apprised of the charge.

• Personal Property under Article 308, Revised Penal Code (Theft) — This refers to any personal property, tangible or intangible, corporeal or incorporeal, capable of appropriation, that can be the object of theft. The Court clarified that "personal property" under the RPC should be interpreted in the context of Civil Code definitions, meaning any property not enumerated as real property and capable of appropriation. In this case, the Court held that while international phone calls themselves are not owned by PLDT, PLDT's business of providing telecommunication and its telephone services are personal property susceptible to theft.
• Statutory Construction (Technical Terms) — Where words have been long used in a technical sense and judicially construed to have a certain meaning, and have been adopted by the legislature as having that meaning prior to a particular statute, the words used in such statute should be construed according to the sense in which they have been previously used. This was applied to the term "personal property" in the RPC, linking its interpretation to its established meaning in civil law.
• Concept of "Taking" in Theft — "Taking" under Article 308 of the RPC does not require asportation (carrying away). It includes any act intended to transfer possession or to appropriate, depriving the lawful owner of the thing. This can be done through mechanical devices, such as in ISR operations which divert telecommunication services.
• Business as Personal Property — A business, or an interest in a business, is considered personal property because it is capable of appropriation and is not included in the enumeration of real properties under the Civil Code. The Court applied this to PLDT's business of providing telecommunication services, deeming it subject to theft.
• Forces of Nature as Personal Property (Article 416(3), Civil Code) — This article deems "forces of nature which are brought under the control by science" as personal property. While telephone calls involve electrical energy (a force of nature), the Court focused on the theft of the service and business rather than the calls themselves, as PLDT did not own the calls.
• Amendment of Information (Rule 110, Section 14, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure) — An information may be amended in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused pleads. The Court directed the amendment of the information not because of a mistake in charging the proper offense (it was still theft), but to accurately describe the property stolen (PLDT's services and business) to ensure the accused's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

• "Indeed, while it may be conceded that "international long distance calls," the matter alleged to be stolen in the instant case, take the form of electrical energy, it cannot be said that such international 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 transmits said calls using its complex communications infrastructure and facilities. PLDT not being 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 PLDT that constitutes the crime of theft, which is the unlawful taking of the telephone services and business."
• "Therefore, the business of providing telecommunication and the telephone service are personal property under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, and the act of engaging in ISR is an act of "subtraction" penalized under said article."
• "The only requirement for a personal property to be the object of theft under the penal code is that it be capable of appropriation. It need not be capable of "asportation," which is defined as "carrying away." Jurisprudence is settled that to "take" under the theft provision of the penal code does not require asportation or carrying away."
• "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 properties under Article 415, it is therefore personal property."

• United States v. Genato (15 Phil. 170 (1910)) — Referenced for establishing that intangible properties like electricity can be subjects of theft and that ownership over electricity and telephone service is protected under the Penal Code. It supported the view that acts of subtraction, like tampering or tapping, constitute theft.
• United States v. Carlos (21 Phil. 553 (1911)) — Cited alongside Genato for consistently ruling that any personal property, tangible or intangible, capable of appropriation can be the object of theft. The Court used the Civil Code definition of "personal property" in this case.
• United States v. Tambunting (41 Phil. 364 (1921)) — Also cited with Genato and Carlos for the same principle regarding intangible personal property and theft, specifically in the context of fraudulently obtaining gas.
• Strochecker v. Ramirez (44 Phil. 933 (1922)) — Referenced to support the argument that an "interest in business" is personal property capable of appropriation and mortgage, even if not explicitly listed in the Civil Code. This was extended by analogy to classify "business" itself as personal property.
• Natividad v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-14887, January 31, 1961, 1 SCRA 380) — Cited as an example where "taking" in theft included controlling the destination of stolen property, such as through meter tampering, to deprive the owner.
• Krivenko v. Register of Deeds (79 Phil. 461 (1947)) — Cited for the principle of statutory construction that words used in a statute, long used in a technical sense and judicially construed, should be interpreted according to that previously established sense.
• People v. Mercado (65 Phil. 665 (1938)) — Referenced for the definition of "asportation" ("carrying away") and the clarification that "taking" in theft does not necessarily require asportation.
• Duran v. Tan (85 Phil 476 (1950)) — Cited along with People v. Mercado to affirm that "taking" in theft does not require asportation.

• Revised Penal Code, Article 308 (Who are liable for theft) — This is the central provision defining the crime of theft, its elements, and specifying "personal property" as the subject matter. The ruling extensively interprets what constitutes "personal property" and "taking" under this article.
• Civil Code of Spain, Article 335 — Cited for its definition of "personal property" as "anything susceptible of appropriation and not included in the foregoing chapter (not real property)," which influenced the interpretation of "personal property" in Philippine penal law.
• Civil Code (Philippines), Article 414 — States that all things which are or may be the object of appropriation are considered either real property or personal property. This supports the broad scope of what can be considered property.
• Civil Code (Philippines), Article 415 — Enumerates real properties. By exclusion, properties not listed here and capable of appropriation are generally considered personal property. This was used to argue that business, not being listed, is personal property.
• Civil Code (Philippines), Article 416(3) — Defines "forces of nature which are brought under the control by science" (like electricity) as personal property. This was relevant to the discussion of international calls as electrical energy, though the Court ultimately focused on the theft of service/business.
• Act No. 3952 (Bulk Sales Law), Section 2 — Cited to show that business can be appropriated (as it can be sold or transferred in bulk), thereby supporting the argument that business is personal property and can be an object of theft.
• Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 110, Section 14 — Referenced in relation to the amendment of the information. The Court clarified that the directed amendment was to ensure the accused was fully informed of the charge, not due to a mistake in charging the proper offense.
• Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 119, Section 19 — Mentioned alongside Rule 110, Section 14, in the context of when dismissal of an information would be proper due to a mistake in charging the offense, which the Court found not to be the case here.

• Justice Renato C. Corona — Justice Corona agreed with the ponencia that PLDT does not own the telephone calls (which are electrical energy) but merely encodes and transmits them. He emphasized the distinction between the conversation (owned by the parties to the call and protected by privacy laws) and the telephone service (owned by PLDT, which made the call possible). He voted to grant the motion for reconsideration on the basis that it was PLDT's service that was stolen, not the content of the calls.