SANEAMIENTO

On or about September 10-19, 1999, or prior thereto in Makati City, the accused, conspiring and confederating together and all of them mutually 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 feloniously take, steal and use the international long distance calls belonging to PLDT by conducting International Simple Resale (ISR), which is a method 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 its facilities in the estimated amount of P20,370,651.92 to the damage and prejudice of PLDT, in the said amount.

Issue:

Whether international long distance calls and the business of providing telecommunication or telephone services are considered as personal properties subjected to theft.

Held:

In the instant case, the act of conducting ISR operations by illegally connecting various equipment or apparatus to private respondent PLDTs telephone system, through which petitioner is able to resell or re-route international long distance calls using respondent PLDTs facilities constitutes all three acts of subtraction mentioned above.

ACCORDINGLY, the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The assailed Decision is RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the Order issued 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. The case is 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 services and business of the private offended party.

GABLOIA V. PEOPLE Facts:

The RTC convicted Alfonso Gaviola guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified theft. On September 6, 1997 at 7:00 AM, Jovencio Mejarito, a nephew of Cleto Mejarito, and a barangay councilman saw Gavino Gaviola, Rodrigo Gaviola and Domingo Caingcoy climbing the coconut trees and deliberately took, harvested and gathered 1500 coconuts thru the supervision of Alfonso and Leticia Gaviola from the plantation of Cleto Mejarito without his authority and consent. The said accused admitted that the coconuts were taken upon his instruction but insisted that the trees were planted from the lot he inherited from his father.

Issue:

Whether or not the said accused is guilty of qualified theft.

Held:

Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code states that theft is committed by any person, who with intent to gain but without violence, against or intimidation of neither persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter‘s consent.

Theft is likewise committed by: (1.) Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner; (2.) Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove or make use of the fruits or objects of the damage caused by him; and (3.) Any person who shall enter an enclosed state or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather fruits, cereals or other

forest or farm products. Thus, the elements of theft are: 1). That there be taking of personal property; 2) that said property belongs to another; 3) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner and 5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. According to Article 310: Qualified theft - The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degree than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or fishery or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.

For one to be guilty of theft, the accused must have intent to steal (animu furandi) personal property, meaning the intent to deprive another of his ownership/lawful possession of personal property which intent is apart from but concurrent with the general criminal intent which is an essential element of a felony of dolo. Thus, petitioner‘s claim of good faith in taking the coconuts from private complainant‘s land is a mere pretense to escape criminal liability.

LUCAS V. CA Facts:

Herminigildo Lucas was charged with theft before the Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, Br. 69, Rizal, together with Wilfredo Navarro and Enrique Lovena. The Information^[1]alleged that on or about 8 June 1990 the three (3) accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to gain, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stole and carried away one stereo component, a 14-inch colored TV, an electric fan, twenty-three (23) pieces of cassette tapes, one (1) box of car toys, four (4) pieces of Pyrex crystal bowls, cash ofP20,000.00 and jewelry worth P10,000.00, valued at P100,000.00 all belonging to Luisito Tuazon.

The accused made an appeal to the Court of Appeals. Petitioner Lucas alleges that it was impossible for conspiracy to have existed among the accused. He claims he did not know his co-accused Navarro and Lovena; neither did they know him on or before 8 June 1990

Issue:

Whether or not conspiracy is essential to make the petitioners liable of committing the crime of theft.

Held:

No, Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement to commit the crime. It may be deduced from the concerted acts of the accused, indubitably

demonstrating their unity of purpose, intent and sentiment in committing the crime. It is enough that the accused acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense and that they had the same purpose or common design, and that they were united in its execution.

To sustain a conviction for theft, the following elements must be present: (1) personal property of another person must be taken without the latter's consent; (2) the act of taking the personal property of another must be done without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things; and, (3) there must be an intention to gain from the taking of another person's personal property.

The Court of Appeals which affirmed their conviction and even raised the period of their imprisonment to from six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal as maximum

PEOPLE V. MANERO