Author: jurist-prudence

EVANGELINE LADONGA VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. NO. 141066: February 17 2005: 492 Phil. 60

Offense Involved: Violation of B.P. Blg. 22

FACTS: In 1989, spouses Adronico and Evangeline Ladonga became regular customers in the pawnshop business of complainant Alfredo Oculam. Sometime in May 1990, the Ladonga spouses. Obtained three loans from him, guaranteed by three post-dated United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) Checks. The three checks bounced upon presentment for the reason ‘closed account’. When the Ladonga spouses failed to redeem the check, despite repeated demands, Alfredo Oculam filed a criminal complaint against them. Ladonga spouses claimed that the checks were issued only to guarantee the obligation, with an agreement that Oculam should not encash the checks when they mature.  RTC rendered a decision finding the Ladonga spouses guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating B.P. Blg. 22. Adronico filed for a probation which was granted, while Evangeline Ladonga elevated the case to the Court of Appeals arguing that the RTC erred in finding her criminally liable for conspiring with her husband as the principle of conspiracy is inapplicable to B.P. Blg. 22 which is a special law. Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of petitioner. Hence this case.

ISSUE/S:

  1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in applying the principle of conspiracy, as defined under the RPC, to violations of B.P. Blg. 22?
  2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding petitioner guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22?

HELD:

  1. No. The Court of Appeals did not err in applying the principle of conspiracy, as defined under the RPC, to violations of B.P. Blg. 22. The B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly proscribe the suppletory application of the provisions of the RPC. Thus, in the absence of contrary provision in B.P. Blg. 22, the general provisions of the RPC which, by their nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied suppletorily.
  • Yes. The Court of Appeals erred in finding petitioner guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22. Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the petitioner with moral certainty because conspiracy was not proven. Its evidence falls short of the quantum of proof required for conviction. Criminal liability cannot be based on a general allegation of conspiracy, and a judgment of conviction must always be founded on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence. In this case, the elements of the crim. In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove that petitioner performed any overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.

ELVIRA YU OH VS. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 125297: June 6 2003: 451 Phil. 380

Offense Involved: Violation of B.P. Blg. 22

FACTS: Elvira Yu Oh bought jewelry from private respondent, Solid Gold International Traders but failed to pay purchase price. The parties then entered into a compromise agreement whereby petitioner was to issue ninety-nine postdated checks amounting to P50,000 each to be deposited every 15th and 30th of the month from October 1990 to November 16, 1994. Petitioner issued 10 checks amounting to P50,000 each, drawn against her account in Equitable Banking Corporation. However, when the manager deposited the checks with Far East Bank and Trust Company, the checks were dishonored as the account was already closed. This prompted the private respondent to file a complaint for B.P. 22. RTC rendered a decision finding the accused guilty of ten counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Petitioner appealed to the CA but it found it to be of no merit and affirmed the RTC’s decision. Hence, this case.

ISSUE/S:

  1. Whether or not the appellate court erred in convicting petitioner of ten counts of B.P. 22?
  2. Whether or not the appellate erred in not giving retroactive effect to R.A. 7690 in view of Article 22 of the RPC?

HELD: 

  1. Yes. The appellate court erred in convicting petitioner of ten counts of B.P 22. The liability of the petitioner was not established because the prosection was not able to present the notice of dishonor to the drawer. In cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, it is necessary that the prosecution prove that the issuer had received a notice of dishonor. Since service of notice is an issue, the person alleging that the notice was served must prove the fact of service. Basic also is the doctrine that in criminal cases, the quantum of proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, for cases of B.P.. 22 there should be clear proof of notice.
  • No. The appellate court did not err in not giving retroactive effect to R.A. 7690 in view of Article 22 of the RPC.  Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code finds no application to the case at bar. A penal law, is an act of the legislature that prohibits certain acts and establishes penalties for its violations. It also defines crime, treats of its nature and provides for its punishment. R.A. No. 7691 does not prohibit certain acts or provides penalties for its violation; neither does it treat of the nature of crimes and its punishment. Consequently, R.A. No. 7691 is not a penal law, and therefore, Art. 22 of the RPC does not apply in the present case. R.A. No. 7691 which took effect on June 15, 1994, amended B.P. Blg. 129, and vested on the Metropolitan, Municipal and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts jurisdiction to try cases punishable by imprisonment of not more than six (6) years. Since R.A. No. 7691 vests jurisdiction on courts, it is apparent that said law is substantive. Jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint, and once acquired, jurisdiction is not affected by subsequent legislative enactments placing jurisdiction in another tribunal; in this case, the RTC was vested with jurisdiction to try petitioner’s cases when the same were filed in October 1992; at that time, R.A. No. 7691 was not yet effective. In so far as the retroactive effect of R.A. No. 7691 is concerned, that same is limited only to pending civil cases that have not reached pre-trial stage as provided for in Section 7 thereof.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. LUISITO D. BUSTINERA

G. R. No. 148233: June 08 2004: 475 PHIL 190

Offense Involved: Anti-Carnapping Law

FACTS: Sometime in1996, Edwin Cipriano hired the accused, Luisito Bustinera, as a taxi driver and assigned him to drive a Daewoo Racer. They agreed that Bustinera would drive the taxi from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm, and would return it to the garage and remit the boundary of P780.00 per day. However, on Dec. 25, 1996, the accused reported for work but did not return the taxi on the same day. On the following day, Cipriano went to Bustinera’s house but did not find the taxi there. The wife of the accused also informed Cipriano that his husband has not yet returned. Cipriano then went to report his missing taxi. It was only on January 9, 1997 where the taxi was recovered after the wife of the accused informed Cipriano that the said taxi was abandoned on Regalado street, Quezon City. In his defense, accused admitted that he did not return the taxi on December 25 as he was short on the boundary fee. However, he posited that he returned the taxi on January 5, 1997 and signed the record book, which was company procedure, to show that he indeed returned it and gave his employer P2,500.00 as partial payment for the boundary fee covering the period from December 25, 1996 to January 5, 1997. After trial, the RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft.

ISSUE/S:

  1. Whether RPC or Anti-Carnapping is applicable in this case?
  2. Whether or not accused-appellant violated the Anti-Carnapping Law?

HELD: 

  1. Anti-Carnapping is applicable in this case. Appellant was convicted of qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended for the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. However, Article 310 has been modified, with respect to certain vehicles, by Republic Act No. 6539, as amended, otherwise known as “An Act Preventing And Penalizing Carnapping.” When statutes are in pari materia or when they relate to the same person or thing, or to the same class of persons or things, or cover the same specific or particular subject matter, or have the same purpose or object, the rule dictates that they should be construed together interpretare et concordare leges legibus, est optimus interpretandi modus. Every statute must be so construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence.
  • Yes. Accused-appellant violated the Anti-Carnapping Law. The prosecution was able to prove the existence of all the elements of carnapping, to wit: (1) the taking of a motor vehicle which belongs to another; (2) the taking is without the consent of the owner or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or by using force upon things; and (3) the taking is done with intent to gain. The argument of the defense that there was no intent to gain when he failed to return the taxi to its garage holds no merit. Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act, presumed from the unlawful taking of the motor vehicle. Actual gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain. The term gain is not merely limited to pecuniary benefit but also includes the benefit which in any other sense may be derived or expected from the act which is performed. Thus, the mere use of the thing which was taken without the owners consent constitutes gain.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ALLEN UDTOJAN MANTALABA

G.R. No. 186227: July 20 2011: 669 Phil. 461

Offense Involved: R.A. 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)

FACTS: Sometime in 2003, the Task Forcer Regional Anti-Crime Emergency Response (RACER) in Butuan City received a report that a 17 yrs old named Mantalaba was selling shabu. A buy-bust operation was conducted in  the evening of October 1, 2003. After this, two informations were filed against Mantalaba which was later on consolidated. During arraignment, Mantalaba pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued and the RTC found Mantalaba guilty beyond reasonable doubt and was penalized of reclusion perpetua to death and fine of 500k for selling shabu, and for illegally possessing shabu. Mantalaba was penalized, in application of the ISL, 6 yrs and 1 day as minimum and 8 yrs as maximum of prision mayor and fine of 300k. CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC. Thus, the present appeal.

ISSUE/S:       

  1. Whether or not the lower court erred in convicting accused-appellant of drug trafficking and possession?
  2. Whether or not lower court erred in disregarding accused-appellant’s minority as privileged mitigating circumstance in fixing the penalty?

HELD:

  1. No. Lower court did not err in convicting accused-appellant Mantalaba of drug trafficking and possession. Prosecution was able to establish the evidence of actual sale between him and the poseur-buyer, as well as the chain of custody of the seized shabu. The buy-bust operation was valid, establishing the following: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore. From the above testimony of the prosecution witness, it was well established that the elements have been satisfactorily met. The seller and the poseur-buyer were properly identified. The subject dangerous drug, as well as the marked money used, were also satisfactorily presented. The testimony was also clear as to the manner in which the buy-bust operation was conducted. Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. Its non-compliance will not render an accused arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.
  • Yes. Lower court erred in disregarding accused-appellant’s minority as privileged mitigating circumstance in fixing the penalty. The Court of Appeals must have appreciated Mantalaba’s minority as privileged mitigating circumstance in fixing the penalty. Thus, applying the rules stated above, the proper penalty should be one degree lower than reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion temporal, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority having been appreciated. Necessarily, also applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW), the minimum penalty should be taken from the penalty next lower in degree which is prision mayor and the maximum penalty shall be taken from the medium period of reclusion temporal, there being no other mitigating circumstance nor aggravating circumstance.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MARTIN Y. SIMON

G.R. No. 93028: July 29 1994: 304 Phil. 725

Offense Involved: R.A. 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)

FACTS: On October 22, 1988, Martin Simon was caught in flagrante delicto engaging in the illegal sale of prohibited drugs. The prosecution was able to prove beyond a scintilla of doubt that appellant, on October 22, 1988, did sell two tea bags of marijuana dried leaves to Sgt. Lopez.  There were 2 tea bags of marijuana that was sold and there were 2 other tea bags of marijuana confiscated. Information was filed for the illegal sale of four tea bags of marijuana dried leaves. On December 1989, the trial court rendered judgment convicting appellant for a violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, to pay a fine of twenty thousand pesos and to pay the costs. The four tea bags of marijuana dried leaves were likewise ordered confiscated in favor of the Government. Aggrieved, the appellant elevated this present case, arguing that

ISSUE/S:

  1. Whether or not the lower court erred in convicting Martin Simon for selling for the 4 tea bags of marijuana instead of only 2?

HELD:

  1. Yes. The lower court erred in convicting Martin Simon for selling for the 4 tea bags of marijuana. The Court ruled that there were 2 tea bags of marijuana that was sold and there were 2 other tea bags of marijuana confiscated. Thus, Simon should be charged of selling for the 2 tea bags of marijuana only. The court held that Republic Act No. 6425, as now amended by Republic Act No. 7659, has unqualifiedly adopted the penalties under the Revised Penal Code in their technical terms, hence with their technical signification and effects. In fact, for purposes of determining the maximum of said sentence, the court have applied the provisions of the amended Section 20 of said law to arrive at prision correccional and Article 64 of the Code to impose the same in the medium period. Such offense, although provided for in a special law, is now in effect punished by and under the Revised Penal Code. Correlatively, to determine the minimum, the court applied first part of the aforesaid Section 1 which directs that “in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense.”. Hence, in the case at bar, appellant should be begrudged the benefit of a minimum sentence within the range of arresto mayor, the penalty next lower to prision correccional which is the maximum range have fixed through the application of Articles 61 and 71 of the Revised Penal Code. For, with fealty to the law, the court may set the minimum sentence at 6 months of arresto mayor, instead of 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. FELIPE MIRANDILLA JR.

G.R. No. 186417: July 27 2011: 670 Phil. 397

Offense Involved: Kidnapping and illegal detention with Rape

FACTS: On or on about midnight of December 2, 2000, AAA was dancing with her elder sister, BBB in the plaza. AAA went out of the dancing hall to buy candies in a nearby store. While making her way back through the crowd, a man grabbed her hand, his arm wrapped her shoulders, with a knife’s point thrust at her right side. Mirandilla held AAA in detention for thirty-nine (39) days in separate cells situated in the city. He carnally abused her while holding a gun and/or a knife for twenty-seven (27) times, employing force and intimidation. At least once, Mirandilla put his penis in AAA’s mouth against her will while employing intimidation, threats, and force. AAA was able to escape one afternoon. She was able to reach the house of one Evelyn Guevarra who brought her to the police station on January 11, 2001. Guevarra bathed AAA and the police gave AAA food. When the police presented to her pictures of suspected criminals, she recognized Mirandilla’s face. Mirandilla was charged before the RTC of Legazpi City with kidnapping with rape, four counts of rape, and rape through sexual assault. Mirandilla denied the charges against him. He insisted that he and AAA were live-in partners and that their sexual encounters were consensual. The RTC convicted him of the offenses charged. The CA affirmed with modification the RTC ruling convicting Mirandilla. It found him guilty of the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape (instead of kidnapping as ruled by the RTC), four counts of rape, and one count of rape by sexual assault. Mirandilla appealed.

ISSUE/S:

  1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals properly convicted Mirandilla of the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, four counts of rape, and one count of rape by sexual assault?

HELD:

  1. No. The Court of Appeals did not properly convicted Mirandilla The proper offense is special complex crime of kidnapping and illegal detention with rape. AAA was able to prove each element of rape committed under Article 266-A, par. 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code, that (1) Mirandilla had carnal knowledge of her, (2) through force, threat, or intimidation. She was also able to prove each element of rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code: (1) Mirandilla inserted his penis into her mouth, (2) through force, threat, or intimidation. Likewise, kidnapping and serious illegal detention is provided for under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code which states that any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death if the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days. However, no matter how many rapes had been committed in the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, the resultant crime is only one kidnapping with rape. This is because these composite acts are regarded as a single indivisible offense as RA 7659 punishes these acts with only one single penalty.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. WILFREDO LAYUG, ET., AL

G.R. No. 223679: September 27,2017: 818 Phil. 1021

Offense Involved: Robbery with Homicide

FACTS:  On June 1, 2001 in Dinalupihan, Bataan, accused-appellants had a shabu session together with the witness, Analiza Paule wherein they planned a hold-up against the victim, Victorino Paule. After the shabu session, accused-appellants introduced Analiza Paule to Victorino Paule and they agreed that the former will bring her to Benzi Lodge to have sex with her for a fee. After this, the witness and the accused-appellants instructed a tricycle driver-witness to bring all of them in their hide-out. Upon reaching a dark place, one of the accused instructed the driver to stop and he asked the victim to alight from the tricycle. After taking a few steps, the accused-appellants mugged and stabbed the victim to death and took his wallet and jewelry. Analiza Paule and the tricycle driver were threatened not to tell anyone or they will also get killed. Three days after, Analiza Paule reported the incident to the police. The accused-appellants were charged in the RTC with Robbery with Homicide with aggravating circumstance of treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength attended the commission of the crime. The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and presented their defenses and alibis. The RTC ruled against the accused and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Aggrieved, the accused-appellants  elevated the case to the CA, to which the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence this case.

ISSUE/S:

  1. Whether or not lower court erred in finding accused to be guilty of Robbery with Homicide?
  2. Whether or not lower court erred in finding that treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength were present in the commission of robbery with homicide? No.

HELD:

  1. No. The lower court did not err in finding accused to be guilty of Robbery with Homicide. Accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide. The prosecution was able to prove the existence of all the elements of the crime (Art. 294, par. 1) by virtue of the the accounts of the eyewitnesses, particularly Analiza Paule and the tricycle driver’s testimonies. This is because no evidence was adduced by the defense to refute it or to show why said witnesses would testify falsely against appellants.
  • No. The lower court did not err in finding that treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength were present in the commission of robbery with homicide The following aggravating circumstances were present in the commission of the crime: (a) treachery; (b) evident premeditation;  and (c) abuse of superior strength. The RTC was correct in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of treachery. Treachery was established through Analiza’s testimony that upon reaching the secluded place, Victorino was asked to alight from the tricycle and without any provocation on his part, was repeatedly stabbed and kicked by the accused-appellants. Here, Victorino was caught by surprise when he was immediately stabbed by Buan a few steps after they alighted from the tricycle. It shows that the victim was caught completely off-guard, which supports the existence of the first element of treachery, i.e., a sudden attack giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. The second element is likewise present as the accused-appellants consciously and deliberately stabbed the victim as evidenced by the fact that all of them had knives in their possession when the stabbing incident happened.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. CONRADO R. LAOG

G.R. No. 178321: October 05 2011: 674 Phil. 444

Offense Involved: Rape with Homicide

FACTS: At around 6 PM of June 6, 2000, AAA and Jennifer Patawaran-Rosal, were walking along the rice paddies on their way to apply for work at a canteen near the National Highway in Sampaloc, San Rafel, Bulacan. Suddenly, appellant, who was holding an ice pick and a lead pipee, waylaid them and forcibly brought them to a grassy area at the back of a concrete wall. Thereafter, appellant struck AAA in the head with the lead pipe causing her to feel dizzy and to fall down. When Jennifer saw this, she cried out for help but appellant also hit her on the head with the lead pipe, knocking her down. Appellant stabbed Jennifer several times with the ice pick and covered her body with thick grass. Appellant then turned to AAA wherein he hit her in the head and stabbed her on the face. While AAA was in such defenseless position, appellant raped her. Thereafter, accused covered her with grass. At that point, AAA passed out. After gaining consciousness, AAA asked for help from her uncle and she was brought to the hospital where she stayed for more than 3 weeks. Appellant denied the charges against him. He testified that he was at home cooking dinner around the time the crimes were committed. RTC found appellant guilty of the 2 crimes. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua for the murder of Jennifer and Reclusion Perpetua for the rape he committed to AAA.

ISSUE/S:

  1. Whether or not lower court erred in finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the death of Jennifer and for the Rape AAA?

HELD:

  1. Accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Rape with Homicide and Rape. The prosecution in this case was able to prove both the rape of AAA and the killing of Jennifer both perpetrated by appellant, he is liable for rape with homicide under 266-B. The facts established showed that the constitutive elements of rape with homicide were consummated. the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim’s testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim’s testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JUAN GONZALES ESCOTE, JR.

G.R. No. 140756: April 04 2003: 448 Phil. 749

Offense Involved: Robbery With Homicide

FACTS: On September 28, 1996 at past midnight, At Camachile, Balintawak, six passengers boarded the bus, including Victor Acuyan and Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr. who were wearing maong pants, rubber shoes, hats and jackets. Another passenger, SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr., a resident of Angeles City, was seated at the rear portion of the bus on his way home to Angeles City. Tucked on his waist was his service gun. When the bus was travelling along the highway in Plaridel, Bulacan, Juan and Victor suddenly stood up, whipped out their handguns and announced a holdup.. Juan and Victor then accosted the passengers and divested them of their money and valuables. Juan divested Romulo of the fares he had collected from the passengers. The felons then went to the place Manio, Jr. took the identification card of the police officer as well as his service gun and told him: “Pasensya ka na Pare, papatayin ka namin, baril mo rin and papatay sa iyo.” and shot him on the mouth, right ear, chest and right side of his body. Manio, Jr. sustained six entrance wounds. Victor and Juan then moved towards the driver Rodolfo, seated themselves beside him and ordered the latter to maintain the speed of the bus. Victor and Juan ordered Rodolfo to stop the bus along the overpass in Mexico, Pampanga where they alighted from the bus. When the bus reached Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga, Rodolfo and Romulo forthwith reported the incident to the police authorities. Barely a month thereafter, Juan was captured in a checkpoint. While Victor was captured by virtue of a warrant of arrest. Victor denied the charge and interposed the defense of alibi. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan found Juan and Victor guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide as penalized under Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE/S:

  1. Whether or not trial court erred in finding the accused-appelants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide?

HELD:

  1. No. The trial court did not err in finding the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide. The prosecution was able to prove the existence of the following essential elements: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property thus taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is therein used in a generic sense, was committed. the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Juan and Victor conspired and confabulated together in robbing the passengers of the Five Star Bus of their money and valuables and Romulo of his collections of the fares of the passengers and in killing SPO1 Manio, Jr. with impunity on the occasion of the robbery. Hence, both Juan and Victor are guilty as principals by direct participation of the felony of robbery with homicide under paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. YOLANDA P. SANTOS

G.R. No. 237982: October 14 2020

Offense Involved: Qualified Theft (Article 310, RPC)

FACTS: Yolanda P. Santos, accused-appellant, was the Officer In Charge (OlC)-Property Accountant of Dasman Realty for its Dasman Residences project. Prompted by a report alleging that accused-appellant failed to account for and remit various payments received by her from clients to Dasman Realty, the latter issued a Memorandum dated July 11, 2013 authorizing Bañares to conduct a recording and bookkeeping review of the sale transactions and payment receipts due to the corporation under the accountability of accused-appellant. Upon evaluation of the original receipts and acknowledgment receipts as well as records of transactions, Bañares discovered that within the period of August 2011 to July 2013, fourteen (14) receipts, the aggregate value of which amounted to PI,029,893.33 under the accountability of the accused-appellant were unremitted to Dasman Realty. On July 11, 2014, fourteen (14) Informations for qualified theft under Article 310 of the RPC were filed against accused-appellant in RTC Pasay City. The RTC found the accused-appellant guilty of qualified theft. Aggrieved, the accused-appellant appealed, but the CA affirmed the RTC decision. Hence, this case.

ISSUE/S:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting accused-appellant of the crime of qualified theft despite failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

HELD:

  1. No. The Court of Appeals did not err in convicting accused-appellant of the crime of qualified theft. The prosecution was able to establish the presence of all the elements of qualified theft under Article 310 in relation to Article 308 of the RPC. Accused-appellant, as part of her duty as OIC-Property Accountant of Dasman Realty, admitted that she received the payments from Dasman Realty’s clients for the period September 2011 to May 2013 in the total amount of P1,029,893.33, thus, she had actual possession of the monies, yet failed to remit the same to Dasman Realty. As an employee tasked to merely collect payments from Dasman Realty’s clients, she did not have a right over the thing as she was merely entrusted to collect the cash collections in behalf of Dasman Realty.