FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246459. July 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. EDRIC GABRIEL, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 6, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246459 (People of the Philippines v. Edric Gabriel).
After review of the records, this Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its September 14, 2018 Decision 1 as to warrant the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Edric Gabriel (appellant) was charged with the crime of qualified theft in an Information dated May 30, 2002, which reads:
That on or about the month of November 2001, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, being then employed as [liaison] officer of E.C. GOZUM COMPANY, INC., represented by CLAIRE MAGPANTAY, with office address located at Mezzanine Floor, Milestone Hotel/Apartelle 834 Banawe St. near corner Del Monte Avenue, this City, and as such has free access to the money stolen, with grave abuse of confidence, with intent to gain and without the consent of the owner thereof, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal, and carry away the total amount of P90,300.00, Philippine Currency, belonging to the said offended party, to the latter's damage and prejudice in the amount aforementioned.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 2
The essential elements of qualified theft 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; and (6) the taking was done under any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), i.e., with grave abuse of confidence. 3
Here, the prosecution duly proved all the aforesaid elements. First, the prosecution established that appellant, as part of his duty as liaison officer and bookkeeper of E.C. Gozum Company, Inc. (E.C. Gozum), received money from Edward Gozum (Edward), President of E.C. Gozum, as payment to the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) for processing fees.
Second, the money taken belongs to E.C. Gozum. Contrary to appellant's claim, he did not acquire juridical possession of the money he received from Edward even though the latter gave the money to him. It is well-settled that 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. 4 Such material possession of an employee is adjunct, by reason of his employment, to the recognition of the juridical possession of the employer. 5 As long as the juridical possession of the thing appropriated did not pass to the employee, the offense committed is theft, qualified or otherwise. 6
Third, the absence of the company's consent was shown in its effort to confirm if the POEA payment had been made and in its attempts to account for the missing money through a review of its books and its acts to recover it from appellant. It also bears emphasis that the purpose of handing the money over to appellant was for the payment of POEA fees. HSAcaE
Fourth, intent to gain on the part of appellant was likewise established. Intent to gain is an internal act that is presumed from the unlawful taking by the offender of the thing subject of asportation. 7 Here, appellant admitted that he received money from Edward, as well as the payments from the tenants of the company, and yet failed to account for the money when required to do so.
Fifth, appellant neither employed violence or intimidation against persons nor force upon things in obtaining the funds.
Sixth, the taking was clearly done with grave abuse of confidence. As aptly stated by the CA, both appellant and Edward admitted that appellant was entrusted with handling money and the accounts of E.C. Gozum being its bookkeeper and liaison officer. However, appellant took advantage of the trust vested in him by E.C. Gozum through its president, Edward, and took the money for his own benefit. Further, the CA correctly observed that appellant himself even admitted in his irrevocable letter of resignation that there was trust between them, stating:
"I wish that I can render my services in a longer period of time but due to some reasons it might not happen. I could no longer work effectively and efficiently since you no longer have the trust in me. This is one aspect which is very essential considering good working relationship. I just hope that somehow, I contributed a lot with the company. Yes (sic) assure that I learned a lot of experience inside and outside the company." 8 (emphasis supplied)
Considering the foregoing, the CA did not err in affirming the trial court's conviction of the appellant. In a criminal case, the factual findings of the trial court are generally accorded great weight and respect on appeal, especially when such findings are supported by substantial evidence on record. 9 It is only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the trial court overlooked material and relevant matters, that the Court will evaluate the factual findings of the court below. 10
As to the penalty imposed against appellant for the crime of qualified theft, the Court finds that it must be modified. Although the penalty for qualified theft remains to be two degrees higher than those stated in Article 309 of the RPC for simple theft, Article 309 has been amended by [Republic Act (R.A.)] No. 10951. 11 Under the amendment, the penalty for theft "if the value of the property stolen is more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) but does not exceed Six hundred thousand pesos (P600,000.00)" shall now be prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
In this case, the amount taken was P32,000.00. Applying R.A. No. 10951, the imposable penalty for qualified theft should be prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods. In the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the maximum penalty to be imposed shall be taken from the medium range of the said period — or within the range of nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to ten (10) years and eight (8) months.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, 12 which prescribes that the minimum penalty shall be "within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed" for the offense, the minimum penalty is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, which has a range of four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day to eight (8) years. Using the same rules to determine the maximum imposable penalty, the minimum penalty shall be anywhere within the range of five (5) years, five (5) months, and eleven (11) days to six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty (20) days.
Thus, as modified, the proper imposable penalty shall be five (5) years, five (5) months, and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. 13
Lastly, an interest rate of six percent (6%) per annum is likewise imposed on the monetary award from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment thereof. 14
WHEREFORE, this Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the September 14, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09374. Appellant Edric Gabriel is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Theft punishable under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 10951, and is hereby SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of five (5) years, five (5) months, and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.
He is likewise ORDERED to PAY private complainant the amount of P32,000.00, with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Resolution until full payment. HESIcT
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 4-16; penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, concurring.
2. CA rollo, p. 12.
3.Reside v. People, G.R. No. 210318, July 28, 2020.
4.Id.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id., citing Matrido v. People, 610 Phil. 203, 212 (2009).
8.Rollo, p. 14.
9.People v. Dillatan, Sr., G.R. No. 212191, September 5, 2018, 879 SCRA 329, 340.
10.Id.
11. An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of Property and Damage on Which a Penalty is Based, and the Fines Imposed under the Revised Penal Code, Amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815, Otherwise Known as the Revised Penal Code, as Amended; approved on August 29, 2017.
12. Act No. 4103, entitled "An Act to Provide for an Indeterminate Sentence and Parole for All Persons Convicted of Certain Crimes by the Courts of the Philippine Islands; to Create a Board of Indeterminate Sentence and to Provide Funds therefor; and for Other Purposes" (December 5, 1993), as amended by Act No. 4225.
13.Reside v. People, supra note 3.
14.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 282-283 (2013).