QUALIFIED THEFT: TAKING OF PERSONAL PROPERTY WITH INTENT TO GAIN SHOULD BE PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

Qualified theft has the following elements:

(a) taking of personal property;

(b) that the said property belongs to another;

(c) that the said taking be done with intent to gain;

(d) that it be done without the owner’s consent;

(e) that it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things; and

(f) that it be done with grave abuse of confidence.

This post is relevant to labor discussion considering that it shows the importance of company policies in treating the cash and collections of the company when handled by its employee so as to establish criminal liability.

Thus, in the following case the SC held as follows:

People of the Philippines vs. Molde
G.R. No. 228262, January 21, 2019

Facts:

Joenil Pin Molde (Molde) was charged with the crime of qualified theft.

According to the prosecution Molde was hired as an office clerk by Sun Pride Foods, Inc. (Sun Pride) in 2006. In February 2008, he was assigned to the company’s Las Pifias Branch as the “accounting-in-charge”. As such, he had custody over the cash and check collections of sales agents as well as the Weekly Remittance Transmittal Reports (WRTR) submitted by them. In particular, he was in-charge of depositing the cash payments in Sun Pride’s account with the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), and sending the checks issued as payments for Sun Pride to its main office in Cebu City.

Sometime in 2010, Grace Maquiling, the overall head of accounting of Sun Pride, ordered an investigation with regard the low cash remittances from the company’s Las Piñas Branch. After the audit conducted by Mariano Victorillo (Victorillo ), Sun Pride’s internal auditor, it was discovered that the total amount unremitted to Sun Pride had ballooned to P1,149,960 comprising of P757,998.35 in cash and P391,962.21 in checks.

After furnishing appellant with a copy of the audit report, Sun Pride sent two demand letters requiring the former to pay the total unremitted amount but to no avail. Sun Pride eventually suspended Molde from work pending investigation. For his part, he stopped reporting to work after tendering his letter of resignation despite Sun Pride’s refusal to accept said letter.

Advertorial: Acquire Mastery in Labor Rules, Doctrines and Principles. Purchase HR Bundle books authored by Atty. Villanueva at discounted offer 

Molde denied the allegations against him. He testified that while he received check payments, the checks were payable to Sun Pride Foods, Inc., and he was not authorized to encash the same. Also, the BPI bank deposit slips he received were from the sales agents, who deposit their cash collections directly to the bank. Copies of the deposit slips were submitted to him to be attached to the WRTR.

RTC Ruling:

The RTC found Molde guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified theft.

Molde thereafter appealed the RTC Decision before the CA.

CA Ruling:

The CA affirmed the assailed RTC Decision in toto. It upheld the RTC’s findings that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crime charged.

Aggrieved, Molde filed the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issue/s:

Whether or not receipt of deposit slips of cash payments and the fact that the checks subject of qualified theft charge are payable to the company proved beyond reasonable doubt that there was taking of personal property with intent to gain

SC Ruling:

The SC granted the appeal of Molde.

The elements of qualified theft are: “(a) taking of personal property; (b) that the said property belongs to another; (c) that the said taking be done with intent to gain; (d) that it be done without the owner’s consent; (e) that it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things; [and] (j) that it be done with grave abuse of confidence.”

The SC found that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the elements of the crime of qualified theft. The prosecution failed to prove the crucial elements of taking of personal property and intent to gain on the part of appellant.

For one thing, the subject checks were issued payable to Sun Pride; hence, Molde could not have possibly presented said checks to the drawee bank for encashment for his own personal gain. This fact was confirmed by Sun Pride’s own internal auditor, Victorillo.

For another, it appears that Molde, too, could not have taken the cash collections of Sun Pride’s sales agents for his own personal gain, considering that what he actually received from said sales agents were only deposit slips of the cash payments, personally deposited by the sales agents themselves with the bank. This matter was exhaustively discussed by the defense during appellant’s direct examination.

Notably, the prosecution never denied that the company policy mandated its sales agents to personally deposit their cash collections to the bank. It simply argued that the policy was suddenly changed for the months of November and December 2009 and January 2010 to accommodate the high sales during said period. The documentary evidence, however, negates this assertion completely.

Significantly, the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence that Molde had actually received the check and cash collections from the company’s sales agents. The supposed acknowledgment receipts proving that appellant actually received cash’ and check remittances from Sun Pride’s sales agents had mysteriously gone missing and could not be located in any of the company’s offices.

The totality of these circumstances leads the SC to inevitably conclude that the elements of taking of personal property with intent to gain were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Absent any concrete proof that appellant indeed received: (a) cash collections of Sun Pride’s sales agents; and/or (b) checks payable to cash or in appellant’s name, he cannot be adjudged to have taken the same for his own personal gain.

At this juncture, it bears to stress that the burden to overcome the presumption of innocence of the accused lies on the prosecution. The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.