Gicoso y Martin v. People
This is a criminal case, entitled "Rowena Gicoso y Martin vs. People of the Philippines" (G.R. No. 239760, June 3, 2019). The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction of the petitioner Rowena Gicoso y Martin for the crime of Qualified Theft, committed against Eurovek Building Solutions, Inc. The Court held that the prosecution had established the elements of Qualified Theft through direct evidence, and the trial court's factual findings, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, deserve great weight and respect. Gicoso's defenses of denial and alibi were considered self-serving and unsubstantiated.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239760. June 3, 2019.]
ROWENA GICOSO y MARTIN, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239760 (Rowena Gicoso y Martin v. People of the Philippines)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the November 29, 2017 Decision 2 and the May 11, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 38072 for failure of petitioner Rowena Gicoso y Martin (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding her conviction 4 for the crime of Qualified Theft. cTDaEH
As correctly ruled by the CA, the prosecution had sufficiently established through direct evidence the essential elements 5 of Qualified Theft, considering that petitioner, with intent to gain, abused the trust reposed upon her by misappropriating the amount of P281,471.16 she collected from private complainant Eurovek Building Solutions, Inc.'s sales coordinators. The foregoing findings were based on the positive and categorical testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses, and hence, should prevail over petitioner's self-serving and unsubstantiated defenses of denial and alibi. 6 It is settled that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, deserve great weight and respect, unless there are facts of weight and substance that were overlooked or misinterpreted and that would materially affect the disposition of the case, 7 which do not obtain in this case.
SO ORDERED. (CAGUIOA, J., on official leave.)"
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-23.
2.Id. at 29-50. Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Manuel M. Barrios, concurring.
3.Id. at 52-53.
4. See Decision dated September 15, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 146, penned by Judge Encarnacion Jaja C. Moya; id. at 70-79.
5. The elements of qualified theft, punishable under Article 310, in relation to Articles 308 and 309 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), are: (a) the taking of personal property; (b) the said property belongs to another; (c) the said taking be done with intent to gain; (d) it be done without the owner's consent; (e) it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things; and (f) it be done under any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the RPC, i.e., if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. (See People v. Manlao, G.R. No. 234023, September 3, 2018.)
6. See People v. Santos, G.R. No. 223142, January 17, 2018.
7.Almojuela v. People, 734 Phil. 636, 651 (2014).
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU