SECOND
DIVISION
|
SHEALA P. MATRIDO, Petitioner,
- versus - PEOPLE OF THE Respondent. |
G.R. No. 179061 Present: QUISUMBING,
J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, CHICO-NAZARIO,*
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,** and BRION,
JJ. Promulgated: July 13, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Sheala Matrido (petitioner) assails the May
31, 2007 Decision and August 1, 2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals,[1]
which affirmed the trial court’s Decision of December 13, 2004 convicting her of qualified theft.
As
a credit and collection assistant of private complainant Empire East Land
Holdings, Inc., petitioner was tasked to collect payments from buyers of real
estate properties such as Laguna Bel-Air developed by private complainant,
issue receipts therefor, and remit the payments to private complainant in
On
June 10, 1999, petitioner received amortization payment from one Amante dela
Torre in the amount of P22,470.66 as evidenced by the owner’s copy[2] of
Official Receipt No. 36547, but petitioner remitted only P4,470.66 to
private complainant as reflected in the treasury department’s copy[3] of
Official Receipt No. 36547 submitted to private complainant, both copies of
which bear the signature of petitioner and reflect a difference of P18,000.
On private
complainant’s investigation, petitioner was found to have failed to remit
payments received from its clients, prompting it to file various complaints,
one of which is a Complaint-Affidavit of
In
the meantime or in October 2000, petitioner paid private complainant the total
amount of P162,000,[5]
drawing private complainant to desist from pursuing some related
complaints. A few other cases including
I.S. No. 2000-I-32381 pushed through, however, since the amount did not
sufficiently cover petitioner’s admitted liability of P400,000.[6]
By
Resolution of
That on or about the 10th day of
June 1999, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then a Credit and
Collection Assistant employed by complainant, EMPIRE EAST LAND HOLDINGS, INC.,
herein represented by Leilani N. Cabuloy, and as such had access to the
payments made by complainant’s clients, with grave abuse of confidence, intent
of gain and without the knowledge and consent of the said complainant company,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry
away the amount of P18,000.00 received from Amante Dela Torre, a buyer
of a house and lot being marketed by complainant company, to the damage and
prejudice of the said complainant in the aforementioned amount of P18,000.00.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[8]
On
arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of “not guilty.”[9]
After trial, Branch 56 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
WHEREFORE, accused SHEALA P. MATRIDO is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years[,] five (5) months and ten (10) days.
Accused is further ordered to pay
complainant EMPIRE EAST LAND HOLDINGS, INC., the amount of P18,000.00.
SO ORDERED.[10]
By
the challenged Decision of May 31, 2007,[11] the
Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, hence, the present
petition which raises the sole issue of whether the appellate court “gravely
erred in affirming the decision of the trial [court] convicting the petitioner
of the crime of qualified theft despite the fact that the prosecution tried
to prove during the trial the crime of estafa thus denying the petitioner the
right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against her”[12]
Petitioner
posits that despite her indictment for qualified theft, the prosecution was
trying to prove estafa during trial, thus violating her right to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation against her.
The
petition fails.
In Andaya v. People,[13] the Court expounded on the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against the accused.
x x x As early as the 1904 case of U.S. v. Karelsen, the rationale of this fundamental right of the accused was already explained in this wise:
It is fundamental that every element constituting the offense must be alleged in the information. The main purpose of requiring the various elements of a crime to be set out in the information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense because he is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. The allegations of facts constituting the offense charged are substantial matters and an accused’s right to question his conviction based on facts not alleged in the information cannot be waived. No matter how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be, an accused cannot be convicted of any offense unless it is charged in the information on which he is tried or is necessarily included therein. To convict him of a ground not alleged while he is concentrating his defense against the ground alleged would plainly be unfair and underhanded. The rule is that a variance between the allegation in the information and proof adduced during trial shall be fatal to the criminal case if it is material and prejudicial to the accused so much so that it affects his substantial rights.[14] (Citations omitted; underscoring supplied)
It
is settled that it is the allegations in the Information that determine the
nature of the offense, not the technical name given by the public prosecutor in
the preamble of the Information. From a
legal point of view, and in a very real sense, it is of no concern to the
accused what is the technical name of the crime of which he stands charged. It in no way aids him in a defense on the
merits. That to which his attention should be directed, and in which he, above
all things else, should be most interested, are the facts alleged. The real question is not did he commit a
crime given in the law some technical and specific name, but did he perform the acts alleged in the body
of the information in the manner therein set forth.[15]
Gauging
such standard against the wording of the Information in this case, the Court
finds no violation of petitioner’s rights.
The recital of facts and circumstances in the Information sufficiently
constitutes the crime of qualified theft.
As
alleged in the Information, petitioner took, intending to gain therefrom and
without the use of force upon things or violence against or intimidation of
persons, a personal property consisting of money in the amount P18,000
belonging to private complainant, without its knowledge and consent, thereby
gravely abusing the confidence reposed on her as credit and collection
assistant who had access to payments from private complainant’s clients,
specifically from one Amante Dela Torre.
As
defined, 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
the personal property of another without the latter’s consent.[16] If committed with grave abuse of confidence,
the crime of theft becomes qualified.[17]
In
précis, the elements of qualified theft punishable under Article 310 in
relation to Articles 308 and 309 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) are as follows:
1.
There
was a taking of personal property.
2.
The
said property belongs to another.
3.
The
taking was done without the consent of the owner.
4.
The
taking was done with intent to gain.
5.
The
taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against person, or
force upon things.
6.
The
taking was done under any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the
RPC, i.e., with grave abuse of confidence.[18]
In
the present case, both the trial court and the appellate court noted
petitioner’s testimonial admission of unlawfully taking the fund belonging to
private complainant and of paying a certain sum to exculpate herself from
liability. That the money, taken by
petitioner without authority and consent, belongs to private complainant, and
that the taking was accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation
against persons, nor force upon things, there is no issue.
Intent
to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act that is presumed from the
unlawful taking by the offender of the thing subject of asportation. Actual gain is irrelevant as the important
consideration is the intent to gain.[19]
The
taking was also clearly done with grave abuse of confidence. As a credit and collection assistant of
private complainant, petitioner made use of her position to obtain the amount
due to private complainant. As gathered
from the nature of her functions, her position entailed a high degree of
confidence reposed by private complainant as she had been granted access to
funds collectible from clients. Such
relation of trust and confidence was amply established to have been gravely
abused when she failed to remit the entrusted amount of collection to private
complainant.
The Court finds no rhyme or reason in petitioner’s contention that what the prosecution tried to prove during trial was estafa through misappropriation under Article 315(1)(b) of the RPC.
x x x The principal distinction between the two crimes is that in theft the thing is taken while in estafa the accused receives the property and converts it to his own use or benefit. However, there may be theft even if the accused has possession of the property. If he was entrusted only with the material or physical (natural) or de facto possession of the thing, his misappropriation of the same constitutes theft, but if he has the juridical possession of the thing, his conversion of the same constitutes embezzlement or estafa.[20] (Underscoring supplied)
The
appellate court correctly explained that conversion of personal property in the
case of an employee having material possession of the said property constitutes
theft, whereas in the case of an agent to whom both material and juridical
possession have been transferred, misappropriation of the same property
constitutes estafa.[21] Notably, petitioner’s belated argument that
she was not an employee but an agent of private complainant[22]
grants her no respite in view of her stipulation[23]
during pre-trial and her admission[24]
at the witness stand of the fact of
employment. Petitioner’s reliance on estafa
cases involving factual antecedents of agency transactions is thus misplaced.
That
petitioner did not have juridical possession over the amount or, in other
words, she did not have a right over the thing which she may set up even
against private complainant is clear.[25] In fact, petitioner never asserted any such
right, hence, juridical possession was lodged with private complainant and,
therefore, estafa was not committed.
Petitioner’s
view that there could be no element of taking since private complainant had no
actual possession of the money fails.
The argument proceeds from the flawed premise that there could be no
theft if the accused has possession of the property. The taking away of the thing
physically from the offended party is not elemental,[26] as
qualified theft may be committed when the personal property is in the lawful
possession of the accused prior to the commission of the alleged felony.[27]
A
sum of money received by an employee in behalf of an employer is
considered to be only in the material possession of the employee.[28] The material possession of an employee is
adjunct, by reason of his employment, to a recognition of the juridical
possession of the employer. So long as
the juridical possession of the thing appropriated did not pass to the
employee-perpetrator, the offense committed remains to be theft, qualified or
otherwise.[29]
x x x When the money, goods, or any other personal property is received by the offender from the offended party (1) in trust or (2) on commission or (3) for administration, the offender acquires both material or physical possession and juridical possession of the thing received. Juridical possession means a possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set up even against the owner. In this case, petitioner was a cash custodian who was primarily responsible for the cash-in-vault. Her possession of the cash belonging to the bank is akin to that of a bank teller, both being mere bank employees.[30] (Italics in the original omitted; underscoring and emphasis supplied)
That
the transaction occurred outside the company premises of private complainant is
of no moment, given that not all business deals are transacted by employees
within the confines of an office, and that field operations do not define an
agency. What is of consequence is the
nature of possession by petitioner over the property subject of the unlawful
taking.
On
the penalty imposed by the trial court, which was affirmed by the appellate
court ─ indeterminate penalty of 10 years and 1 day to 12 years, 5 months
and 10 days:
The penalty
for qualified theft is two degrees higher than the applicable penalty for simple
theft. The amount stolen in this case
was P18,000.00. In cases of
theft, if the value of the personal property stolen is more than P12,000.00
but does not exceed P22,000.00, the penalty shall be prision mayor
in its minimum and medium periods. Two
degrees higher than this penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium and
maximum periods or 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 20 years.
Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum shall be prision mayor in its
maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period or within the
range of 10 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months.[31] The mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender being present, the maximum penalty shall be the minimum period of reclusion
temporal in its medium and maximum periods or within the range of 14 years,
8 months and 1 day to 16 years, 5 months and 20 days.
The Court thus
affirms the minimum penalty, but modifies the maximum penalty imposed.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of May 31, 2007 and
Resolution of August 1, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 29593 is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the imposed penalty, such that petitioner,
Sheala P. Matrido, is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 10 years
and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day
of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
SO
ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate
Justice |
ARTURO D.
BRION Associate
Justice |
ATTESTATION
I attest
that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Additional member per Special Order No. 658.
** Additional member per Special Order No. 635.
[1] The assailed issuances were penned by Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. with the concurrence of Justices Jose C. Mendoza and Ramon M. Bato, Jr.; rollo, pp. 53-64, 73.
[2] Records, p. 107.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] TSN,
[7] Records, p. 2.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Penned by Presiding Judge Nemesio S. Felix.
[12] Rollo, p. 14.
[13] G.R. No. 168486,
[14]
[15]
[16] Revised Penal Code, Art. 308, par. 1.
[17]
[18] Vide People v. Bago, 386 Phil. 310, 334-335 (2000).
[19] Vide People v.
Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233,
[20]
[21] Rollo, p. 60.
[22]
[23] Records, p. 65.
[24] TSN,
[25] Rollo, p. 61.
[26] Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code (1998), pp. 687, 691.
[27] Roque v. People, 486 Phil. 288, 304 et seq. (2004)
[28]
[29] Vide id. at 307.
[30] Chua-Burce v. Court of Appeals, 387 Phil. 15, 26 (2000).
[31] Cruz v. People, G.R. No.
176504,