FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 228262, January 21, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOENIL PIN MOLDE, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Assailed in this appeal is the October 30, 2015 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06077 which affirmed the April 3, 2013 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 197, Las Piñas City, finding Joenil Pin Molde (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified theft.
The Antecedent Facts
Appellant was charged with the crime of qualified theft under Article 310, in relation to Article 308, of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in an Information which reads:
That on or about the 26th day of May 2010, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, being then the former ACCOUNTING IN CHARGE of SUN PRIDE FOODS INC. Las Piñas City branch, herein represented by: complainant HENRY DY, and as such he has custody of all the cash collections and checks of the said company and enjoying the trust and confidence reposed upon him by said complainant, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the latter and with grave abuse of confidence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away cash money amounting to Php1,149,960.56, belonging to the said SUN PRIDE FOODS INC. herein represented by: HENRY DY, to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the total amount of Php1,149,960.56.During his arraignment on November 15, 2010, appellant entered a plea of not guilty.4 Trial thereafter ensued.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
[A]s Accounting-In-Charge of [Sun Pride) in its branch in Las Piñas City, [appellant] was authorized to receive collections and payments from sales agents and walk-in customers of [Sun Pride). [Appellant] was able to perpetrate the crime, using the trust and confidence reposed upon him by [Sun Pride], by his failure to remit all collections [that] he received. To reiterate, [the] audit report of [Sun Pride's] internal audit showed that [appellant] unlawfully took the amount of Php1,149,960.56 belonging to [Sun Pride.]12Accordingly, the RTC sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay Sun Pride the amounts of P1,149,960.56, representing the stolen funds, and P458,863.48 as attorney's fees and other litigation expenses.14
x x x x
The defense of denial advanced by [appellant] that he did not receive cash collections from [Sun Pride's] sales agents cannot overcome the positive declaration of the prosecution[']s witnesses, particularly [S]ales [A]gents Remogat and Tigson that they directly remitted their cash collection to [appellant.] The audit report showing the unremitted amount supports and bolsters the claim of the sales agents. x x x13
Notably, initially[,] [appellant] on cross-examination x x x had acknowledged that he received the cash and checks. Later, [appellant] on cross-examination x x x claimed that he did not receive the cash collections and checks. This denial (after initially admitting receipt [thereof]) was a desperate attempt to exculpate himself from liability and an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. [Appellant] did not adduce any such strong evidence to support his claim that he did not receive such cash collections and checks. Bare denials cannot overcome the positive testimonies of private complainant Sun Pride's sales agents that they turned over the cash collections and checks to [appellant]. The defense that [appellant] did not receive the cash and checks was a mere afterthought, in a desperate attempt to escape criminal liability for the crime he committed.16Aggrieved, appellant filed the present appeal.
For another, it appears that appellant, too, could not have taken the cash collections of Sun Pride's sales agents for his own personal gain, considering that what he actually received from said sales agents were only deposit slips of the cash payments, personally deposited by the sales agents themselves with the bank. This matter was exhaustively discussed by the defense during appellant's direct examination, viz.:
[ATTY. VICTOR REY BUENAVENTURA] Q: The One Million something, did it consist [of cash or checks?] A: It consist[ed] of cash and checks[,] sir. x x x x Q: The checks [were] payable to [appellant?] A: Payable to Sun Pride[,] sir. Q: He could not encash the check in his own initiative? A: Yes[,] sir. Q: [Was appellant] able to encash those checks? A: Not yet[,] your honor. Q: Where are those checks now? A: I don't know[,] your honor.19 (Emphasis supplied)
Notably, the prosecution never denied that the company policy mandated its sales agents to personally deposit their cash collections to the bank.25 It simply argued that the policy was suddenly changed for the months of November and December [2009] and January [2010] to accommodate the high sales during said period.26 The documentary evidence, however, negates this assertion completely.
[ATTY. PERLITA DP DASING:] Q: x x x [Y]ou said you also do collections from sales agents, x x x what specifically do you collect from sales agents? A: I collected the Weekly Remittance and [sic] Transmittal Report with the acknowledgment receipts from the customers, official receipts, checks and deposit slips for the cash collections, ma'am.20 x x x x Q: The deposit slips[,] what are these deposit slips that you are referring to? A: Deposit slips [of] their cash,collections, ma'am.21 x x x x Q: How did the sales agents have deposit slips from banks x x x if you know? A: They will deposit their cash collections directly to the bank then [we retain] two (2) copies of deposit slips[:] one mailed to Cebu and the other one left as attachment [on the WRTR], ma'am.22 x x x x Q: We go to Exhibit 'R' because it has here [a] different portion of a deposited amount. Exhibit 'R', [y]our Honor, is the WRTR by the name of Sonia M. Tigson [(one of Sun Pride's sales agents)] dated December 13, 2009 and [in] this WRTR[,] it has on the 'amount' portion, it has a figure there and for the record, [y]our Honor, is [P]13,711.50, what does it show to us? A: That means Sonia Tigson deposited [the amount of [P]13,711.50, ma'am.23 (Emphasis supplied) x x x x Q: Why do you say that Sonia Tigson deposited the corresponding amount of [P]13,711.50? A: Because it was indicated in the deposited amount together with the supporting documents coming from the bank as evidence that [she] deposited the amount, ma'am.24 (Emphasis supplied)
The totality of these circumstances leads us to inevitably conclude that the elements of taking of personal property with intent to gain were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Absent any concrete proof that appellant indeed received: (a) cash collections of Sun Pride's sales agents; and/or (b) checks payable to cash or in appellant's name, he cannot be adjudged to have taken the same for his own personal gain.
COURT Q: There was no document to show that indeed [appellant] received the remittances from the agents? A: There was[,] your honor, but the same is missing in our office. Q: Did you not ask the respective agents who [were] in possession of the documents that indeed the accused received the same? A: I asked the agents, your h nor[,] but their copies were missing in the office. Q: Why is it that they were missing in the office? A:When I asked from the agent the WRTR (transmittal report) and they look[ed] [for] the same [inside] their drawers but the same was missing[,] your honor.
Q: Drawers of whom? A: Of their own drawers[,] your honor. Q: Drawers of the respective agents? A: Yes[,] your honor. Q: Those acknowledgment receipt[s] signed by [appellant] were lost while inside the respective drawers of the agents? A: [Maybe,] your honor. x x x x Q: You just presumed about the allegation or claim of agents that they remitted the amount, without proving that the [appellant] received the amount? A: Yes[,] your honor.29 (Emphasis supplied)
Endnotes:
* Per Raffle dated January 14, 2019, vice J. Jardeleza who recused due to prior action as Solicitor General.
1Rollo, pp. 2-12; penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Jane Aurora C. Lantion.
2 CA rollo, pp. 20-37; penned by Judge Ismael T. Duldulao.
3 Records, p. 1.
4 See Certificate of Arraignment, id. at 137.
5 CA rollo, pp. 101.
6 Id. at 101-102.
7 Id. at 102.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 102-103.
10 Id. at 60.
11 Id. at 37.
12 Id. at 34-35.
13 Id. at 36.
14 Id. at 37.
15Rollo, p. 2-12.
16 Id. at 11.
17 CA rollo, pp. 62-64.
18People v. Cruz, 786 Phil. 609, 618 (2016).
19 TSN, April 28, 2011, pp. 16-17.
20 TSN, June 26, 2012, pp. 13-14.
21 Id. at 14-15.
22 Id. at 15.
23 Id. at 22. See also Exhibit "R," records, p. 354.
24 Id.
25 TSN, September 27, 2012, pp. 7-8.
26 Id. at 9.
27 Records, p. 354.
28 Id. at 355.
29 TSN, April 28, 2011, pp. 28-30.
30People v. Dacuma, 753 Phil. 276, 287 (2015).
31 Id.