Qualified Theft Juris
Qualified Theft Juris
Qualified Theft Juris
193479
"x x x.
Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which defines Theft, provides:
ART. 308. Who are liable for theft.—Theft is committed by any person who,
with intent to gain but without violence, against, or intimidation of persons
nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the
latter’s consent.
1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same
to the local authorities or to its owner;
3. Any person who shall enter an enclosed estate 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 the crime of Theft are: (1) there was a taking of
personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking was
without the consent of the owner; (4) the taking was done with intent to
gain; and (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation
against the person or force upon things.[13]
Theft is qualified under Art. 310 of the RPC, when it is, among others,
committed with grave abuse of confidence, thus:
All of the foregoing elements for Qualified Theft are present in this case.
First. The presence of the first and second elements is abundantly clear.
There can be no quibble that the fund collections through checks payments—
all issued payable to cash—are personal properties belonging to UCC. These
funds through checks were paid by UCC clients for the deliveries of cement
from UCC. One with the courts a quo, We will not belabor this point in the
fifth argument raised by accused-appellant.
As the trial court aptly pointed out, accused-appellant’s theory that he only
kept the funds in trust for UCC with the elaborate explanation that once the
checks cleared in his account then he remits them to UCC is completely
incredulous. For one, accused-appellant has not adduced evidence that he
indeed remitted the funds once the corresponding checks were cleared. For
another, accused-appellant could not explain why he deposited some of the
checks he collected in the accounts of Magno Lim in MetroBank (MBTC
Account No. 124-5) and Equitable PCIBank (EPCIB Account No. 71820-8).
Moreover, accused-appellant’s contention of such alleged management
practice[15] is unsupported by any evidence showing that prior to the events
in mid-2001 there was indeed such a practice of depositing check collections
and remitting the proceeds once the checks cleared.
Fourth. Equally clear and undisputed is the presence of the fifth element.
Accused-appellant admitted having received these checks and depositing
them in his personal account and in the accounts of Magno Lim. Thus, the
element of taking was accomplished without the use of violence or
intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things.
AVP Santos and UCC SVP and Head of Marketing Group Dr. Felizardo met
with accused-appellant who admitted misappropriating company funds. AVP
Santos testified[21] in open court on what transpired in that meeting and
accused-appellant’s verbal admission/confession. And with the findings of
the auditors that not only did accused-appellant unlawfully take UCC funds
but he also committed the offense of violating company policies, rules, and
regulations, UCC was compelled to file seven criminal complaints against
accused-appellant. This swift and prompt action undertaken by UCC argues
against the notion that it consented to accused-appellant’s act of depositing
of check proceeds from company sales of cement products in his account or
in the accounts of Magno Lim.
07/20/01
UCC found that accused-appellant gravely abused the trust and confidence
reposed on him as Branch Manager and violated company policies, rules and
regulations. He did not remit collections from customers who paid “Pay to
Cash” checks. He used the credit line of accredited dealers in favor of
persons who did not have credit lines or other dealers who had exhausted
their credit line. He diverted cement bags from Norzagaray Plant or La Union
Plant to truckers who would buy cement for profit. In these transactions, he
instructed dealers that check be made in the form of “pay to cash”. He did
not issue them receipts. The checks were either encashed or deposited to
accused-appellant’s personal account No. 0301-261982-001 at Security
Bank & Trust Co. (SBTC) Tuguegarao Branch or deposited to the accounts of
a certain Mr. Magno Lim maintained at MetroBank and EquitablePCIBank,
both located at TuguegaraoCity.[29](Emphasis supplied.)
2. These were received by the accused Mirto who deposited them in his
personal account as well as in the account of Mr. Magno Lim.
3. The monies represented by the checks and the case payments were
consideration for bags of cement purchased from the UCC, the complainant-
corporation.
4. The accused Mirto was never authorized nor was it part of his duties as
branch manager to deposit these proceeds in his account or in the account
of Mr. Magno Lim.[30]
ATTY. CARMELO Z. LASAM: Mr. Renolo, can you tell us the specific duties
and responsibilities of your area sales managers?
xxxx
ATTY. RAUL ORACION: Okay, now as Assistant Vice-President for Marketing
and supervisor of all area sales offices and branch managers, could you tell
the duties and responsibilities of the accused Bernard Mirto at that time?
REYNALDO SANTOS: x x x, also collect sales and for the cash for the
collection of our sales.[32]
Proper Penalty
Now to get the proper penalty for each count, We refer toPeople v.
Mercado,[34] where We established that the appropriate penalty for Qualified
Theft is reclusion perpetuabased on Art. 310 of the RPC, which provides that
“[t]he crime of [qualified] theft shall be punished by thepenalties next higher
by two degrees than those respectively specified in [Art. 309] x x x.”
(Emphasis supplied.)
SO ORDERED.