1) Appellant Asamuddin was hired as a messenger by Emelina Gloria and assigned a motorcycle to deliver money. On July 11, 2007, Emelina gave appellant P800,000 and foreign currencies to deliver but he did not return.
2) A month later, the motorcycle was found abandoned. Appellant was charged with carnapping and qualified theft. He claimed to have resigned on July 10 but the court did not accept this defense.
3) The court found appellant guilty, affirming the lower court. It held that appellant's failure to return the motorcycle without permission was unlawful taking for carnapping. It also found a fiduciary relationship between appellant and Emelina for qualified
1) Appellant Asamuddin was hired as a messenger by Emelina Gloria and assigned a motorcycle to deliver money. On July 11, 2007, Emelina gave appellant P800,000 and foreign currencies to deliver but he did not return.
2) A month later, the motorcycle was found abandoned. Appellant was charged with carnapping and qualified theft. He claimed to have resigned on July 10 but the court did not accept this defense.
3) The court found appellant guilty, affirming the lower court. It held that appellant's failure to return the motorcycle without permission was unlawful taking for carnapping. It also found a fiduciary relationship between appellant and Emelina for qualified
1) Appellant Asamuddin was hired as a messenger by Emelina Gloria and assigned a motorcycle to deliver money. On July 11, 2007, Emelina gave appellant P800,000 and foreign currencies to deliver but he did not return.
2) A month later, the motorcycle was found abandoned. Appellant was charged with carnapping and qualified theft. He claimed to have resigned on July 10 but the court did not accept this defense.
3) The court found appellant guilty, affirming the lower court. It held that appellant's failure to return the motorcycle without permission was unlawful taking for carnapping. It also found a fiduciary relationship between appellant and Emelina for qualified
1) Appellant Asamuddin was hired as a messenger by Emelina Gloria and assigned a motorcycle to deliver money. On July 11, 2007, Emelina gave appellant P800,000 and foreign currencies to deliver but he did not return.
2) A month later, the motorcycle was found abandoned. Appellant was charged with carnapping and qualified theft. He claimed to have resigned on July 10 but the court did not accept this defense.
3) The court found appellant guilty, affirming the lower court. It held that appellant's failure to return the motorcycle without permission was unlawful taking for carnapping. It also found a fiduciary relationship between appellant and Emelina for qualified
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
G.R. No.
213913 September 02, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JULKIPLI ASAMUDDIN y
SALAPUDIN a.k.a JUL and REY
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
FACTS: Sometime in 2006, Emelina Gloria hired appellant Asamuddin as a
messenger in E. Gloria Money Changer located at Mandaluyong City, and assigned him a blue Honda XRM motorcycle with plate number UU-9142 for be used for work purposes. On July 11, 2007, at 12:30pm, Emelina handed to appellant the cash amount of P800,000.00 and various foreign denominations with a peso value of P277, 995.00 and instructed him to bring them to her friend Rina Rosalial, also a money changer, in Mabini, Manila. Thereafter, appellant left aboard his service motorcycle. Said instruction and handing of the currencies was seen by Imee, a domestic helper of Emelina, who was then inside the E. Gloria Money Changer.
After an hour, Rosalial called Emelina and told her that appellant has yet to arrive in her shop. Emelina called appellant and his wife through their cellular phones, but to no avail. This prompted Emelina to file a complaint against appellant at the PNP-CIDG, Camp Crame.
A month later, appellants service motorcycle was found abandoned in
Silang, Cavite, and was returned to Emelina.
On January 16, 2008, an Information was filed charging Asamuddin of
violation of RA 6539 or the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 and the crime of Qualified Theft. The cases were temporarily archived, but were revived when appellant was arrested in Zamboanga City in 2009. Asamuddin pleaded not guilty to both charges and denied the accusation, saying that he resigned from his job on July 10, 2007 and that the amount handed to him by Emelina was his last salary.
On October 15, 2012, the RTC of Madaluyong City, Branch 212 found Regaspi guilty of the crime of Carnapping and Qualified Theft. On appeal, the CA affirmed the lower courts decision. Hence, this present petition.
ISSUE: 1.) Whether or not there was no consent of Emelina when appellant took the subject service motorcycle, in order to convict him of the crime of Carnapping. 2.) Whether or not appellants employment as messenger created a fiduciary relationship between him and Emelina, that will qualify him for the crime of Qualified Theft. HELD: 1.) AFFIRMATIVE. Although it is true that Emelina herself tasked the appellant to proceed to Mabini, Manila and permitted him to use the service motorcycle, it cannot be denied that appellants failure to return the motorcycle to Emelina after his working hours constitutes unlawful taking. If indeed appellants taking of the service motorcycle was consented by Emelina, she should not have filed a complaint against the appellant for the loss of the subject personal property. This just proves that appellants possession of the subject property after his work hours was not authorized nor consented by Emelina.
2.) AFFIRMATIVE. One of the elements of the crime of Qualified Theft is
that the crime must be done with grave abuse of confidence. In the present case, there exists a fiduciary relationship between appellant and Emelina, as his function of delivering amounts of money to the clients or other money changers involves a total trust and high degree of confidence from his employer, Emelina. Emelina routinely entrusts to appellant, on a daily basis, various amounts of money from P50,000.00 to P500,000.00 without even requiring the latter to acknowledge receipt thereof. Emelina even testified that she does not have proof that she handed to appellant P800,000.00 and various foreign currency on July 11, 2007 because she has total trust and high degree of confidence on appellant. Tiwalaan lang po. This exhibits the trust and confidence of Emelina to the appellant which he exploited to enrich himself to the damage and prejudice of the former.
Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed, affirming the conviction of
Asamuddin of the crime of Carnapping and Qualified Theft.
