Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Theft
Theft
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
- versus -
BERNARD G. MIRTO,
Accused-Appellant.
October 19, 2011
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
This is an appeal from the Decision [1] dated August 24, 2009 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03444, which affirmed the
March 24, 2008 Decision[2] in Criminal Case Nos. 9034, 9115, 9117 and
9130 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 5 in Tuguegarao City,
Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which defines Theft,
provides:
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.
clear. There can be no quibble that the fund collections through checks
that prior to the events in mid-2001 there was indeed such a practice of
UCC. These funds through checks were paid by UCC clients for the
depositing check collections and remitting the proceeds once the checks
deliveries of cement from UCC. One with the courts a quo, We will not
cleared.
collected amounts subject of the instant case belonged to UCC and not to
customers, who confirmed that she had been sold cement bags instead of to
Pay to Cash checks from UCC customers, he was obliged to turn them over
dealers with credit lines and she was required by accused-appellant to issue
to UCC for he had no right to retain them. That he kept the checks and
deposited them in his account and in the accounts of Magno Lim knowing
all the while that these checks and their proceeds were not his only proves
Mapalo Trucking similarly attested to the same type of sale and payment
accounts of Magno Lim. Thus, the fourth element of intent to gain is duly
proved.
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
Lim. Thus, the element of taking was accomplished without the use of
special audit group from the Group Internal Audit of Phinma Group of
Companies. The special audit group conducted an internal audit from July 3
[22]
to 25, 2001 and submitted a Special Audit Report [20] dated August 8, 2001,
Qualified Theft, holding that the management of the PCIB reposed its trust
period covering May 25, 2001 through June 23, 2001 amounted to PhP
and confidence in the appellant as its Luneta Branch Operation Officer, and
6,572,750.
it was this trust and confidence which he exploited to enrich himself to the
the findings of the auditors that not only did accused-appellant unlawfully
take UCC funds but he also committed the offense of violating company
customers, gravely abused the trust and confidence reposed upon him by the
policies, rules, and regulations, UCC was compelled to file seven criminal
accused-appellant was able to perpetrate the theft of UCC funds to the grave
prejudice of the latter. To repeat, the resulting report of UCCs internal audit
showed that accused-appellant unlawfully took PhP 6,572,750 of UCCs
funds.
to accused-appellants personal account No. 0301261982-001 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 Tuguegarao City.
[29]
(Emphasis supplied.)
2.
3.
4.
in favor of UCC; and that he is a trustee of UCC and, therefore, has juridical
Proper Penalty
308,200, Criminal Case No. 9115 is for PhP 688,750, Criminal Case No.
9117 is for PhP 1,213,900, and Criminal Case No. 9130 is for 68,500 for the
Now to get the proper penalty for each count, We refer to People v.
Mercado,[34] where We established that the appropriate penalty for Qualified
Theft is reclusion perpetua based on Art. 310 of the RPC, which provides
from customers does not give him the license to take the payments and
deposit them to his own account since juridical possession is not transferred
to him. On the contrary, the testimony he cites only bolsters the fact that
accused-appellant is an official of UCC and had the trust and the confidence
of the latter and, therefore, could readily receive payments from customers
determined by the trial court, which are PhP 308,200, PhP 688,750, PhP
1,213,900 and PhP 68,500. Based on Art. 309[35] of the RPC, since the value
of the items exceeds P22,000.00, the basic penalty is prision mayor in its
penalties of reclusion perpetua for four counts of Qualified Theft, accusedappellant shall suffer imprisonment for a period not exceeding 40 years.
following People v. Mercado, We deduct PhP 22,000 from each amount and
amount less than PhP 10,000. We now have 28 years, 66 years, 119 years
and 4 years, respectively, that should be added to the basic penalty. But the
sentenced to serve four (4) penalties of reclusion perpetua. But with the
for each of Criminal Case Nos. 9034, 9115 and 9117 would be 20 years
of reclusion temporal; while Criminal Case No. 9130 would be from 8
SO
ORDERED.
two degrees higher, the correct imposable penalty isreclusion perpetua for
each count.
In fine, considering that accused-appellant is convicted of four (4)
counts of Qualified Theft with corresponding four penalties of reclusion
perpetua, Art. 70 of the RPC onsuccessive service of sentences shall
apply. Art. 70 pertinently provides that the maximum duration of the
convicts sentence shall not be more than threefold the length of time
corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No
other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total
of those imposed equals the said maximum period. Such maximum period
shall in no case exceed forty years. Applying said rule, despite the four
[1]
[35]
Dear PAO,
I am a 3rd year college student somewhere in Manila. One day, I left
my iPad mini inside our classroom. After almost a week, I saw the
said gadget in my classmates bag. But when I tired to talk to him, he
denied that it was my iPad mini. I am one hundred percent sure that
it was really my iPad mini. What case can I file against my
classmate?
Claire
Dear Claire,
[31]
As clearly provided under the law, whoever finds a lost property but
fails to return the same to its owner or the local authorities shall be
Art. 308. Who are liable for theft Theft is committed by any
1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the
Six months from the publication having elapsed without the owner
the finder. The finder and the owner shall be obliged, as the case
As explained above, if you are certain that the gadget you saw in
local authorities.
your classmates bag really belongs to you and you can prove it, then
The provision of Article 719 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines
lost thing or property to return the same to its owner or to the proper
based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the
same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or
elaborated.
"x x x.
xxx
THEFT
However, notwithstanding the correctness of the finding of
petitioners guilt, a modification is called for as regards the
imposable penalty. On the imposition of the correct penalty,
People v. Mercado17 is instructive. Pursuant to said case, in
the determination of the penalty for qualified theft, note is
taken of the value of the property stolen, which is
P797,187.85 in this case. Since the value exceeds
P22,000.00, the basic penalty is prision mayor in its
minimum and medium periods to be imposed in the
maximum period, that is, eight (8) years, eight (8) months
and one (1) day to ten (10) years of prision mayor.
The Facts:
Juanita (Flores), the private complainant, was engaged in the
business of guaranteeing purchase orders and gift checks from
Shoemart and Landmark and disposing them for consideration.
She initially hired Mera Joy (Eleuterio) as house help but was
transferred to her office performing clerical jobs, eventually
elevated her case to the Supreme Court. She maintains that the
The Issue/s:
1.Whether Mera Joy may be held liable for Qualified Theft;
We are one with the trial court and the appellate court in finding
Witness:
3
She
I never took that six hundred forty thousand that they are
Witness:
she did not even make any attempt to explain her issuance of
made any mention about the personal checks that she issued
We also concur with the findings of the trial court and the CA
Memorandum9 filed with the trial court and her Brief10 submitted
belief. All that appellant could claim is that the issuance of the
checks only proves that the same was for a consideration but
theorized that she might have issued the checks to the sub-
confidence.
Anent the penalty imposed, Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised
Penal Code state:
by:
pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; but if the value of the
thing stolen exceeds the latter amount, the penalty shall be the
one year for each additional ten thousand pesos, but the total
(8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to ten (10) years,
adding one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00. Thus, from
one (61) years which we will add to the basic penalty of eight (8)
years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to ten (10) years.
xxxx
SO ORDERED.
SECOND DIVISION, G.R. No. 200308, February 23,
2015, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
VS. MERA JOY ELEUTERIO NIELLES, @ MERA NIELLES
DELOS REYES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.