TITLE

MIRANDA VS PEOPLE
KEYWORDS:
Viva Video
Accounting Clerk; Bookkeeper
Took advantage of position
Grave abuse of confidence
CRIME CHARGED:
Qualified Theft
Grave Abuse of Confidence
bookkeeper in the firm
RTC:
-

Qualified Theft
Petitioner took advantage of her
position and trust and confidence
reposed in her

CA:
-

Qualified Theft

Qualified Theft
Modification as to the penalty
Reclusion Perpetua

SC:

FACTS
- Viva City Commercial Inc and Viva Video City
were sister companies which managed a
chain of stores known as VIDEO CITY
- Petitioner = accounting clerk and
bookkeeper of VCCI and Viva
- One of her duties was to disburse checks for
the account she handled
- She handled 12 video city store franchise
accounts
- As regards the franchisee Jefferson Tan, who
was out of the country most of the time,
Tan pre-signed checks to cover the
stores disbursements and entrusted
them to petitioner. The pre-signed checks
by Jefferson Tan were from a current
account maintained jointly by VCCI and
Jefferson Tan at BPI Family Bank, Sta.
Mesa. There was also an existing
agreement with the bank that any
disbursement not exceeding P20,000.00
would require only Tans signature
- Taking advantage of Tans constant absence
from the country, petitioner was able to
use Tans joint-venture bank account with
VCCI as a clearing house for her
unauthorized transfer of funds.
- Petitioner deposited VCCI checks coming
from other franchisees accounts into the
said bank account, and withdrew the
funds by writing checks to her name
using the checks pre-signed by Tan.
- It was only after petitioner went on maternity
leave and her subsequent resignation
from the company in May 2002 that an
audit was conducted since she refused to
turn over all the financial records in her
possession. The audit was made on all
the accounts handled by petitioner and it
was
discovered
that
she
made
unauthorized withdrawals and fund
transfers amounting to P4,877,759.60
- The prosecution, in proving that petitioner
had unlawfully withdrawn P797,187.85 for
her own benefit, presented as its witness
Jose
Laureola,
the
assistant
manager/acting cashier of BPI Family
Bank, Sta. Mesa Branch. Laureola
presented a microfilm of the checks, the
encashed checks and deposit slips. He

ISSUE
W/N the accused is guilty of Qualified
Theft

HELD
YES!! GUILTY OF QUALIFIED THEFT
- Viva City Commercial Inc and Viva Video City were
sister companies which managed a chain of
stores known as VIDEO CITY
- Elements of theft:
1) that there be taking of personal property;
(2) that said property belongs to another; (3)
that the taking be done with intent to gain;
(4) 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
- Theft becomes qualified when any of the following
circumstances under Article 310 is present:
(1) the theft is committed by a domestic servant;
(2) the theft is committed with grave abuse
of confidence;
(3) the property stolen is either a motor vehicle,
mail matter or large cattle;
(4) the property stolen consists of coconuts
taken from the premises of a plantation;
(5) the property stolen is fish taken from a
fishpond or fishery; and
(6) the property was taken on the occasion of
fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or
any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil
disturbance.
- Prosec was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the amount taken does not belong to
petitioner but to VCCI and that petitioner took it
without consent and with grave abuse of
confidence by taking advantage of her position
as accountant and bookkeeper
- The prosecutions evidence proved that petitioner
was entrusted with checks payable to VCCI or
Viva by virtue of her position as accountant and
bookkeeper. She deposited the said checks to
the joint account maintained by VCCI and
Jefferson Tan, then withdrew a total
of P797,187.85 from said joint account using
the pre-signed checks, with her as the payee. In
other words, the bank account was merely the
instrument through which petitioner stole from
her employer VCCI.
- Moreover, we agree with the CA when it gave short
shrift to petitioners argument that full ownership
of the thing stolen needed to be established first

DOCTRINE
- Elements of theft:
1) that there be taking of personal
property;
(2) that said property belongs to another;
(3) that the taking be done with intent to
gain;
(4) 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
- Theft becomes qualified when any of the
following circumstances under Article 310
is present:
(1) the theft is committed by a domestic
servant;
(2) the theft is committed with grave
abuse of confidence;
(3) the property stolen is either a motor
vehicle, mail matter or large cattle;
(4) the property stolen consists of
coconuts taken from the premises of a
plantation;
(5) the property stolen is fish taken from a
fishpond or fishery; and
(6) the property was taken on the
occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon,
volcanic eruption, or any other calamity,
vehicular accident or civil disturbance.

also presented the bank statement of

VCCI which showed the encashment of
forty-two (42) checks from the account of
VCCI and Jefferson Tan amounting
to P797,187.85
- Petitioner chose not to present any evidence
during trial

PEOPLE VS NIELLES
KEYWORDS:
Cashier
Checks
Guarantors
CRIME CHARGED:
Qualified theft
With Grave abuse of confidence
RTC:
-

Qualified theft
With Grave abuse of confidence

CA:
-

Qualified theft
With Grave abuse of confidence
The fact that Flores was out of the
country during the commission of
the offense is IRRELEVANT since
the prosec established that once
she arrived in the PH, she
immediately investigated the
matter and talked to the subguarantors
Flores also confirmed that indeed
appellant issued 15 personal
checks in lieu of the amounts
collected and deposited the same
to Flores account but were all

DEFENSE OF PETITIONER
- Petitioner claims that the prosecution failed to
show who was the absolute owner of the
thing stolen
- Jefferson Tans signatures on the checks
were not identified by any witness who is
familiar with his signature
- The checks and vouchers presented by the
prosec were not original copies and that
no secondary evidence was presented in
lieu of the former
- Private complainant Juanita Flores (Flores)
was engaged in the business of
guaranteeing purchase orders and gift
checks of Shoemart and Landmark and
disposing, selling or transferring them for
consideration.
- Appellant initially worked as Flores
househelp but was eventually hired to
work at Flores office performing clerical
jobs like sorting invoices.
- When Flores business grew, appellant was
assigned to bill and collect from subguarantors, and to encash and deposit
checks.
- On July 15, 2004, appellant collected
P640,353.86 from the sub-guarantors.
- However, appellant did not remit the amount
to Flores or deposit it in her (Flores)
account.
- Instead, she issued 15 personal checks
totaling P640,353.86 and deposited them
to Flores account.
- All the checks were dishonored upon
presentment due to account closed.
- Appellant thereafter absconded.
DEFENSE:
- Denied having stolen and carried away the
money
- Appellant asserted that since private
complainant Flores was abroad on July

before she could be convicted of qualified theft.

As correctly held by the CA, the subject of the
crime of theft is any personal property
belonging to another. Hence, as long as the
property taken does not belong to the accused
who has a valid claim thereover, it is immaterial
whether said offender stole it from the owner, a
mere possessor, or even a thief of the
property.16 In any event, as stated above, the
factual findings of the courts a quo as to the
ownership of the amount petitioner stole is
conclusive upon this Court, the finding being
adequately supported by the evidence on
record.

W/N the accused is guilty of Qualified

Theft

YES!!! GUILTY OF QUALIFIED THEFT

- Elements of Qualified Theft were proven:
1) that there be taking of personal property;
(2) that said property belongs to another; (3)
that the taking be done with intent to gain;
(4) 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
(6) that it was done with grave abuse of
confidence
- Accused-appellant
took
the
amount
of
P640,353.86 from her without her consent by
failing to turn over the amount she collected
from the formers sub-guarantors. Instead, she
issued fifteen (15) personal checks and
deposited the same to Private Complainants
account which however, all bounced for the
reason account closed.
- The taking of the amount collected by Accusedappellant was obviously done with intent to
gain as she failed to remit the same to Private
Complainant. Intent to gain is presumed from
the act of unlawful taking.
- Further, the unlawful act was accomplished by
Accused-appellant without the use of violence
or intimidation against persons, [or] of force
upon things as the payment to her of the said
amount was voluntarily handed to her by the

- Elements of Qualified Theft were proven:

1) that there be taking of personal
property;
(2) that said property belongs to another;
(3) that the taking be done with intent to
gain;
(4) 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
(6) that it was done with grave abuse
of confidence

dishonored upon presentment.

SC:
-

Qualified theft
With Grave abuse of confidence
Penalty: Reclusion Perpetua

ZAPANTA VS PEOPLE
KEYWORDS:
Engineer
Project Manager of Porta Vaga
Building Construction
CRIME CHARGED:
Qualified Theft
With Grave abuse of confidence
RTC:
CA

Qualified Theft
With Grave abuse of confidence

15, 2004, she could not have personally

known
whether
appellant
indeed
collected amounts from the subguarantors.
- She posited that mere issuance of the 15
checks
is
not
proof
that
she
received/collected payments from the
sub-guarantors or that she failed to remit
the monies belonging to Flores.
- She insisted that the prosecution failed to
establish that she indeed collected
monies
from
the
sub-guarantors
amounting to P640,353.86.
- Appellant also theorized that she might have
issued the checks in favor of the subguarantors for whatever transactions they
have between them; and that thereafter,
when she went to these sub-guarantors
to collect their dues for private
complainant, these sub-guarantors used
the same checks she previously issued
as their payment for private complainant.
For that reason her personal checks were
deposited in private complainants
account.
- She claims that mere issuance of the checks
does not prove unlawful taking of the
unaccounted amount. She insists that, at
most, the issuance of the checks proves
that the same was issued for
consideration.
- In 2001, A. Mojica Construction and General
Services (AMCGS) undertook the Porta
Vaga building construction in Session
Road, Baguio City.
- AMCGS subcontracted the fabrication and
erection of the buildings structural and
steel framing to Anmar, owned by the
Marigondon family. Anmar ordered its
construction materials from Linton
Commercial in Pasig City. It hired Junio
Trucking to deliver the construction
materials to its project site in Baguio City.
- It assigned the petitioner as project
manager with general managerial
duties,
including
the
receiving,
custody, and checking of all building
construction materials.
- On two occasions in October 2001, the

sub-guarantors as she was known to be

entrusted with the collection of payments.
- The circumstance of grave abuse of confidence
that made the same as qualified theft was also
proven. Accused-appellant herself testified that
as a cashier, her functions and responsibilities
include billings and collections from their agents
and making of deposits and withdrawals in
behalf of Private Complainant. Moreover, when
the payment for the purchase orders or gift
checks becomes due, she would fill up the four
(4) blank checks given by the sub-guarantor
with the knowledge and consent of Private
Complainant. It is beyond doubt that an
employee like a cashier who comes into
possession of the monies she collected
enjoys the confidence reposed in her by her
employer, as in the instant case

W/N the accused is guilty of Qualified

Theft

YES!!! GUILTY OF QUALIFIED THEFT

- Elements of Qualified Theft were proven:
1) that there be taking of personal property;
(2) that said property belongs to another; (3)
that the taking be done with intent to gain;
(4) 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
(6) that it was done with grave abuse of
confidence
- All these elements are present in this case. The
prosecutions evidence proved, through the
prosecutions eyewitnesses, that upon the
petitioners instruction, several pieces of wide
flange steel beams had been delivered, twice in

- "Corpus delicti refers to the fact of the

commission of the crime charged or to
the body or substance of the crime. In its
legal sense, it does not refer to the
ransom money in the crime of kidnapping
for ransom or to the body of the person
murdered" or, in this case, to the stolen
steel beams. "Since the corpus delicti is
the fact of the commission of the crime,
this Court has ruled that even a single
witness' uncorroborated testimony, if
credible, may suffice to prove it and
warrant a conviction therefor. Corpus
delicti may even be established by
circumstantial evidence."
EXTRA NOTES:

Qualified Theft
With Grave abuse of confidence

Qualified Theft
With Grave abuse of confidence
Penalty: Reclusion Perpetua

SC:

petitioner instructed Bernardo, Junio

Truckings truck driver, and about 10
Anmar welders, including Cano and
Buen, to unload about 10 to 15 pieces of
20 feet long wide flange steel beams at
Anmars alleged new contract project
along Marcos Highway, Baguio City.
Sometime in November 2001, the
petitioner again instructed Bernardo and
several welders, including Cano and
Buen, to unload about 5 to 16 pieces of 5
meters and 40 feet long wide flange steel
beams along Marcos Highway, as well as
on Mabini Street, Baguio City.
- Engr. Nella Aquino, AMCGS project
manager, informed Engr. Marigondon that
several wide flange steel beams had
been returned to Anmars warehouse
- Engr. Marigondon contacted the petitioner to
explain the return, but the latter simply
denied that the reported return took
place.
- Engr. Marigondon requested Marcelo, her
warehouseman, to conduct an inventory
of the construction materials at the
project site. Marcelo learned from Cano
that several wide flange steel beams had
been unloaded along Marcos Highway.
There, Marcelo found and took
pictures of some of the missing steel
beams.
- He reported the matter to the Baguio City
police headquarters and contacted Anmar
to send a truck to retrieve the steel
beams, but the truck came weeks later
and, by then, the steel beams could no
longer be found. The stolen steel beams
amounted to P2,269,731.69.
DEFENSE:
- In his defense, the petitioner vehemently
denied the charge against him.
- He claimed that AMCGS, not Anmar,
employed him, and his plan to build his
own
company
had
been
Engr.
Marigondons motive in falsely accusing
him of stealing construction materials.
- The petitioner submits that, while the
information charged him for acts
committed "sometime in the month of

October 2001 and once in November 2001,

along Marcos Highway and Mabini Street,
Baguio City; the petitioner betrayed the trust
and confidence reposed on him when he, as
project manager, repeatedly took construction
materials from the project site, without the
authority and consent of Engr. Marigondon, the
owner of the construction materials.
CORPUS
DELICTI
IS
COMMISSION
OF

THE
FACT
OF
THE
CRIME

- The petitioner argues that his conviction was

improper because the alleged stolen beams or
corpus delicti had not been established. He
asserts that the failure to present the alleged
stolen beams in court was fatal to the
prosecutions cause. The petitioners
argument fails to persuade us
- "In theft, corpus delicti has two elements,
namely:
(1) that the property was lost by the owner, and
(2) that it was lost by felonious taking."
- In this case, the testimonial and documentary
evidence on record fully established the corpus
delicti.
- The positive testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, particularly Bernardo, Cano and
Buen, stating that the petitioner directed them to
unload the steel beams along Marcos Highway
and Mabini Street on the pretext of a new
Anmar project, were crucial to the petitioners
conviction.
- The security logbook entry, delivery receipts and
photographs proved the existence and the
unloading of the steel beams to a different
location other than the project site.

As to the sufficiency of allegation of the

date of the commission of the crime, IT IS
SUFFICIENT the petitioner had been fully
apprised of the charge of qualified theft since
the information stated the approximate date
of the commission of the offense through the
words "sometime in the month of October,
2001." We stress that the information did not
have to state the precise date when the
offense was committed, as to be inclusive of
the month of "November 2001" since the date
was not a material element of the offense. As
such, the offense of qualified theft could be
alleged to be committed on a date as near as
possible to the actual date of its commission.
Clearly, the month of November is the month
right after October

October, 2001," he was convicted for acts

not covered by the information, i.e.,
November 2001, thus depriving him of his
constitutional right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation
against him.
- He further argues that the prosecution failed
to establish the fact of the loss of the
steel beams since the corpus delicti was
never identified and offered in evidence