People v. Velasco

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 233701. August 7, 2019.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.CHARLTON VELASCO, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 7, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 233701 (People of the Philippines v. Charlton Velasco)

For review is the Decision 1 dated May 4, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 37151, which affirmed the Decision 2 dated December 2, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 25 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 09-268637 finding Charlton Velasco (accused-appellant) guilty of the crime of Qualified Theft.

The prosecution established that before the end of business hours on October 30, 2008, Gladys Lovette Alfaro (Gladys), Gemma V. Mauricio (Gemma), and accused-appellant were in the España Branch of R-Cycle Motor Corporation (R-Cycle España). There, they counted the sales and collections for the day amounting to P54,907.41. After preparing the cash count report and recording the amount of cash on-hand in the company's logbook, they placed the money and the logbook in R-Cycle España's vault. Gladys, as cashier, then turned over the vault's key to accused-appellant, who was R-Cycle España's branch manager. After closing R-Cycle España, Gladys and Gemma went home to Nueva Ecija. 3

On November 1, 2008, Gladys arrived at R-Cycle España and found the auditors present. Upon interrogation, Gladys disclosed that she and Gemma went home to Nueva Ecija per accused-appellant's instruction. During the audit, Gladys received a text message from accused-appellant informing her that the money was with him. In the same text message, accused-appellant sought to borrow money from Gladys to place in the vault. When Gladys relayed the text message to the Chief Auditor, Joel Ortiz Luis (Joel), they forcibly opened the vault and discovered that the money was indeed missing. 4

During the said audit, Gladys received a phone call from R-Cycle's Buendia Branch Manager, Deogracias Agapito 5 (Deo), who asked if Gladys can return the money into the vault. Eventually, Deo went to R-Cycle España but denied knowledge of the incident. 6

Accused-appellant later met with Joel at R-Cycle's Buendia Branch, where he admitted taking and using the money that was placed in R-Cycle España's vault. 7 Accused-appellant then returned P53,107.69 8 of the money he took.

Accused-appellant, testifying in his own behalf, admitted taking the money from the vault. He explained that he did so in order to "secure the safety of the employees in view of the recent hold-up and robbery occurrences around [R-Cycle España]." 9 Accused-appellant further stated that he went home to Nueva Ecija for a 5-day leave, during which time he was informed that there were employees who conducted an audit at R-Cycle España and opened the vault despite his absence. Later on, accused-appellant went to Manila to report for work but was prevented to go to R-Cycle España. Thus, he resorted to turning over some of the money to Deo. Accused-appellant justified his failure to return the full amount as "he had given money for transportation to some of R-Cycle's employees, which he was authorized to do as Branch Manager." 10

On December 2, 2014, the RTC rendered judgment convicting accused-appellant as charged, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused CHARLTON VELASCO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Theft, defined and penalized under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years eight (8) months and one (1) day of Reclusion Temporal as maximum.

The accused is likewise ordered to reimburse the private complainant the amount of P1,799.72 representing the balance of the amount not returned to the private complainant. No pronouncement as to cost.

SO ORDERED. 11 (Emphasis and italics in the original)

The RTC held that the prosecution was able to prove the presence of all the elements of the crime, namely:

1. Taking of personal property.

2. That the said property belongs to another.

3. That the said taking be done with intent to gain.

4. That it be done without the owner's consent.

5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things.

6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence. 12

The trial court did not lend credence to accused-appellant's claim that he took the money from the vault for "safekeeping." The court explained that the very reason for having a vault was to ensure the safety of valuable items. It found accused-appellant's justification doubtful in view of the less secure manner of bringing the money home. Moreover, accused-appellant's failure to: (1) inform his superiors of his plan to take the money with him and (2) return the same on the first working day following the holiday rendered his motives suspect. 13

The RTC also found accused-appellant's act of taking the money as qualified by grave abuse of confidence given his position as branch manager of R-Cycle España — a position necessarily entailing a high degree of trust and confidence. 14

Lastly, the trial court ordered accused-appellant to completely return the amount he took from the vault, i.e., the balance of P1,799.72, as it did not accept accused-appellant's unsubstantiated allegation that the same was used to defray the transportation cost of R-Cycle Espana's employees. 15

On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court with modification as to the penalty of imprisonment. The CA imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua after having found that the said penalty is two degrees higher than the imposable penalty for simple theft of P54,907.41.

In their respective manifestations, 16 the parties expressed their desire to dispense with filing their respective supplemental briefs, considering the extensive discussions made in their briefs with the CA.

After a perusal of the records of the case, this Court resolves to dismiss the appeal for failure of accused-appellant to sufficiently show that the CA committed reversible error in upholding his conviction for the crime of Qualified Theft.

It has been clearly proven, as in fact accused-appellant has admitted, that he took R-Cycle España's money without the latter's consent and without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things. What accused-appellant insists is the absence of unlawful taking and intent to gain. Accused-appellant maintains that he intended to return the same. 17

Accused-appellant also asserts that his position as branch manager does not limit his authority to verifying the accuracy of the amounts remitted by the cashier and ensuring that the money is safely kept in R-Cycle España's vault.

The arguments fail to persuade.

Intent to gain is presumed from the furtive taking of useful property appertaining to another unless special circumstances reveal a different intent on the perpetrator's part." 18 Although accused-appellant avers that he merely took the money for safekeeping, his failure to inform his superiors or the auditors casts doubt on his alleged noble intention. Similar to this Court's findings in Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, 19 accused-appellant "should have, at the very least, mentioned to the auditors [his] alleged safekeeping of the [October 30, 2008] collections, if only to dispel any notion that [he] did not [intend to take the same for his personal gain.] [Accused-appellant's] failure to do so casts doubt on the veracity of [his] claim." 20 Add this to the fact that he brought the company's money home despite knowing fully well that he would be taking a 5-day vacation leave.

As to the penalty imposed against accused-appellant for the crime of Qualified Theft, the Court finds that the same must be modified in accordance with Republic Act No. (R.A.) 10951. 21 Although the penalty for Qualified Theft remains to be two degrees higher than those stated in Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code for simple theft, Article 309 has been amended by R.A. 10951. 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)" 22 shall now be prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.

In this case, the amount taken was P54,907.41. Applying the provision above, 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 nine years, four months, and one day.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, 23 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 years, two months, and one day to eight years. Using the same rules as that in determining the maximum penalty to be imposed, the penalty of five years, five months, and eleven days shall be used as the minimum penalty.

Thus, as modified, the proper imposable penalty is five years, five months, and eleven days of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine years, four months, and one day of prision mayor, as maximum.

Lastly, an interest rate of 6% per annum is likewise imposed on the monetary award from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment thereof in accordance with this Court's ruling in Nacar v.Gallery Frames. 24

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated May 4, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 37151 finding accused-appellant Charlton Velasco GUILTY in Criminal Case No. 09-268637 for the crime of Qualified Theft is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant is 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.

Furthermore, the monetary award of P1,799.72 shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Samuel H. Gaerlan, with Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-13.

2. Penned by Presiding Judge Marlina M. Manuel; CA rollo, pp. 63-76.

3.Id. at 64, 66-67.

4.Id. at 66-67.

5.Rollo, p. 5.

6. CA rollo, p. 67.

7.Id. at 65.

8.Rollo, p. 5.

9. CA rollo, p. 52.

10.Id. at 53.

11.Id. at 76.

12.Id. at 73.

13.Id. at 74-75.

14.Id. at 75.

15.Id. at 76.

16.Id. at 25-26, 30-31.

17.Id. at 55-56.

18.Omana v. People, 251 Phil. 609, 615 (1989), citing People v. Mercado, 65 Phil. 665 (1938).

19. 537 Phil. 751 (2006).

20.Id. at 768-769.

21. "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.

22. R.A. No. 10951, Sec. 81, amending Article 309 (3) of Act. No. 3815.

23. 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.

24. 716 Phil. 267, 282-283 (2013).