Picar v. People

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 246615. May 5, 2021.]

MAX PICAR, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMay 5, 2021, which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 246615 (Max Picar v. People of the Philippines). — Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the review of the Decision 2 dated October 30, 2018 and Resolution 3 dated March 29, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 40145, which affirmed the Decision 4 dated May 10, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando City, La Union, Branch 27, which found petitioner Max Picar (Picar) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Theft.

The Facts

Two (2) separate Informations were filed before the RTC against Picar charging him with the crime of Qualified Theft penalized under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The Informations read as follows:

Criminal Case No. 9225:

That on or about 29th day of March 2010, in the City of San Fernando, Province of La Union, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, being then an employee of WELLFORM TRADING CORPORATION designated as a Checker with the task of receiving and counting stocks in the warehouse of said corporation, with intent to gain and with abuse of confidence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and cart away Cobra Products worth TEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED NINETY PESOS (P10,290.00), Philippine Currency, belonging to WELLFORM TRADING CORPORATION without the latter's consent, to the damage and prejudice of said WELLFORM TRADING CORPORATION in the aforestated amount plus consequential damages.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Criminal Case No. 9226:

That on or about 25th day of June 2010, in the City of San Fernando, Province of La Union, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, being then an employee of WELLFORM TRADING CORPORATION designated as a Checker with the task of receiving and counting stocks in the warehouse of said corporation, with intent to gain and with abuse of confidence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal, and cart away Cobra Products worth THIRTY FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE PESOS AND 30/100 (P34,573.30), Philippine Currency, belonging to WELLFORM TRADING CORPORATION without the latter's consent, to the damage and prejudice of said WELLFORM TRADING CORPORATION in the aforestated amount plus consequential damages.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

Upon his arraignment, Picar pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. 6

Version of the Prosecution

On August 29, 2010, Victoria Cumigad (Cumigad), the Branch Accountant of Wellform Trading Corporation (Wellform), informed Rommel Malit (Malit), Wellform's Regional Finance Office and Audit Head, that there is a material variance in the inventory of beverage stocks in the La Union Sales Office. 7

On August 30, 2010, Malit immediately conducted an audit of the merchandise inventory. The physical audit and the audit report were witnessed by Cumigad and Picar, who was the Checker of the La Union Sales Office. Malit's initial audit findings revealed that there is a shortage amounting to P88,851.83 worth of "full goods" merchandise. Malit included in his audit the physical checking of all product containers to determine if they had full contents and to ascertain if empty containers (referred to as empties) were included in the inventory. The audit was, thus, extended until September 22, 2012 and Malit reported that the value of the shortage amounted to P162,257.83, which include both full goods and empties. 8

During the course of his audit, Malit discovered that there are two invoices (duplicate copy) pertaining to sale transactions to two clients; which were not included in the sales history but were entered into the sales records of the La Union Sales Office but the cash proceeds were not remitted. The subject invoices are identified as follows: (1) Cash Invoice No. 15680 issued to Antonio Marquez (Marquez) in the amount of P10,290.00; and (2) Cash Invoice No. 19439 issued to Renato "Boyet" Tolentino (Tolentino) in the amount of P34,573.30. Malit further found that these invoices were issued by Picar. 9

Marquez testified that he had been doing business with Wellform and bought Cobra energy drinks from Picar for almost one year. Marquez also recounted that on March 29, 2020, he purchased 60 cases of Cobra Energy drink from Picar and paid him the amount of P10,290.00 in cash. Marquez stated that Picar issued Cash Invoice No. 15680 for that transaction. Tolentino wrote a Letter dated May 14, 2011 that he purchased 200 cases of Cobra Energy drink from Picar in the amount of P34,573.30 last June 25, 2020. 10

During the conduct of the inventory from September 1 to 22, 2010, Picar went on an absence without official leave or AWOL. Due to Picar's failure to report back for work despite several notices to explain and requests for him to report, he was ultimately terminated from his employment with Wellform. Considering that no payment was remitted on account of the subject invoices and coupled with Picar's unexplained unauthorized leave of absence, Wellform's Market Territory Manager Eddie Go (Go) initiated the complaint for Qualified Theft against Picar. 11

Version of the Defense

On the other hand, the defense prescuted its sole witness, Picar, who denied all the allegations against him. Picar claimed that, as a Checker, he was never in the possession of any company receipts as his duty only pertained to the recording of the incoming and outgoing of products. Allegedly, it was his supervisor, William Renon, who transacted with the buyers and dealers of Wellform. Picar further alleged that he was threatened by Go that if he did not sign the audit inventory report, Go will shoot him. 12

The Ruling of the RTC

The RTC held that all the elements of Qualified Theft were duly established and proven in Criminal Case No. 9225 based on the following: (a) Picar sold 60 cases of Cobra Energy Drinks to Marquez as evidenced by the cash invoice dated March 29, 2010, which was in Picar's handwriting; (b) Picar did not remit the cash payment of the said transaction; (c) he took the property or cash without the consent of the owner but with the absence of force and intimidation; (d) as a checker, Picar held a position which entails a degree of confidence as he had access to the goods inside the warehouse; and (e) Picar abused the trust and confidence reposed on him by Wellform by taking and selling goods directly to Marquez and receiving money from the latter to the prejudice of Wellform. 13

As to Criminal Case No. 9226, the RTC held that the guilt of Picas was not proven beyond reasonable doubt considering that Tolentino was not presented in court. 14

The fallo of the RTC Decision is hereby reproduced, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the accused Max Picar:

(1) GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 9225 of the crime of Qualified Theft committed and penalized under Article 308 in relation to Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and is hereby sentenced to: (a) suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, of Six (6) Years and One (1) Day of prision mayor as minimum to Twelve (12) Years of reclusion temporal as maximum; and (b) ordered to indemnify the private complainant Wellform Trading Corporation the amount of P10,290.00 representing the value of the stolen property: and

(2) ACQUITTED of the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 9226, on reasonable doubt.

SO ORDERED. 15

Not satisfied with the decision of the RTC, Picar appealed the Criminal Case No. 9225 before the CA. 16

The Ruling of the CA

The CA denied Picar's appeal and affirmed the findings of the RTC. The CA concurred with the RTC that all the elements of Qualified Theft were clearly established by the prosecution. As regards Picar's argument that the prosecution failed to prove that there was grave abuse of confidence on his part, the CA opined that Picar could not have committed the crime were it not for the position he held as a trusted employee who had direct access not only to the merchandise of the company, but the actual stock records. Even if the defense contended that Picar had no access to the receipts and documentations, he still had control over the merchandise stocks in the warehouse and could easily engage in sales transactions with buyers and dealers like in the case of Marquez. 17 The CA likewise observed that Picar merely interposed general denials without offering any explanation as to the loss of the subject goods. Moreover, Picar went on absence without leave in the middle of the audit inventory and never returned for work despite several notices requesting his return and explanation. The CA opined that these render a reasonable inference pointing to the guilt of Picar. 18

The dispositive portion of the now-assailed CA Decision reads as follows:

FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated May 10, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court Branch 27, San Fernando City, La Union in Criminal Case No. 9225 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 19

Aggrieved, Picar elevated the case before the Court via the present Petition for Review on Certiorari insisting on his innocence and submitting that the CA erred in affirming the ruling of the RTC that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Theft. 20

The Issue

Did the CA gravely err in finding Picar guilty of Qualified Theft?

The Court's Ruling

The petition is without merit.

It bears to emphasize that in a petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Court is only limited to questions of law. The Court is not a trier of facts and its function is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts. 21 Picar admits in his petition questions of fact and asserts that this case falls under the exception 22 to the general rule considering that the factual findings of the lower courts do not conform to the evidence in the record.

An examination of the case shows that none of the exceptions are present in the case to warrant the review and reversal of the factual findings of the lower courts. Granting that the exceptions are present in the case, the grounds interposed in the petition fail to convince the Court.

All the elements of qualified theft

As the factual milieu of the case reveals, Picar was charged with the crime of Qualified Theft. Picar, who had access to the merchandise inventory entrusted to him as a checker, gravely abused the confidence reposed upon him by Wellform by stealing or carting away Cobra drink products worth P10,290.00 to the damage of Wellform.

Theft is defined under Article 308 of the RPC, viz.:

ARTICLE 308. Who are liable for theft. —Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence, against, or intimidation of neither persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent.

While Article 310 of the RPC reads:

ARTICLE 310. Qualified Theft. — The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation, 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. (Emphasis supplied)

Stated otherwise, 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 RPC, i.e., with grave abuse of confidence. 23

All the foregoing elements of Qualified Theft are present in the instant case.

First, it was duly established that Marquez paid Picar the amount of P10,290.00 for the purchase of 60 cases Cobra Energy drink, as evidenced by the testimony of Marquez and the Cash Invoice No. 15650 which was issued by Picar to Marquez. Second, the Cobra Energy drinks belong to Wellform as part of its merchandise inventory. Third, Picar failed to remit to Wellform the P10,290.00, which was paid by Marquez for the 60 cases of Cobra Energy drink.

In his petition, Picar insists that the first and second elements of Theft were not proven by the prosecution. Near argues that Cash Invoice No. 15680, which was aimed to establish that Marquez received the Cobra Energy drinks, is not reliable considering that it did not bear Marquez's signature signifying that he received the subject goods. Picar likewise avers that the signature appearing on the said Cash invoice is not his and an examination of the other documents, such as the Audit Report, would prove that the signature was forged. Picar further bemoans that the prosecution failed to prove that Marquez paid him the P10,290.00 because the prosecution failed to present any other evidence in support of Marquez's self-serving and incredible testimony. 24 Picar's position must fail.

The trial court, as affirmed by the CA, gave probative weight and credence on the testimony of Marquez, that he indeed received the Cobra Energy Drinks indicated in Cash Invoice No. 15680 and that he paid Picar the amount of P10,290.00. As noted by the RTC, the subject transaction occurred inside Picar's office within the company warehouse. 25 It is well-entrenched that the Court will not interfere with the determination of credibility of witnesses, unless there is clear showing that the trial court overlooked material facts or gravely abused its discretion, especially where, as in this case, such assessment is affirmed by the CA. 26 Verily, the Court finds that the evidence for the prosecution deserve credence. Notably, Picar failed to present sufficient evidence to support his disclaim of liability. As to Picar's defense of denial, it is frowned with disfavor as it is inherently weak and self-serving and cannot prevail over the direct, positive and categorical declarations of the prosecution witnesses.

As regards the claim of forgery, it bears to stress that forgery is not presumed and any allegation of forgery must be supported by clear, convincing and positive evidence. 27 Here, it has not escaped the attention of the Court that such issue was only raised by Picar on appeal before the CA. During the proceedings before the RTC, Wellform's Manager, Go, identified the signature found on the Cash Invoice as Picar's, however, Picar failed to present countervailing evidence to negate Go's testimony. With Picar's failure to timely raise the issue before the RTC and to present evidence to support his claim of forgery, the defense of forgery cannot be entertained in the present petition. aScITE

Fourth, Picar's unexplained sudden absence without leave in the middle of the audit inventory and his failure to return for work and failure to explain his absence despite several opportunities provided for him by Wellform lead to the presumption that he took the proceeds of the subject Cobra Energy drink with intent to gain (animus lucrandi). The Court concurs with the CA that flight per se is not synonymous to guilt, however, Picar's unexplained flight, taken together with all the other circumstantial evidence in this case, clearly indicates his guilt.

Fifth, the taking was not done through violence or intimidation against person, or force upon things.

Sixth, Picar gravely abused the confidence reposed upon him by Wellform by taking advantage of his position as a checker of the warehouse to unlawfully take merchandise inventory therein without the consent of the owner. This particular issue was squarely addressed by the CA in this manner:

Here, while We are confronted with conflicting testimonies as to the actual employment position of Picar, it bears noting that the records unequivocally prove that Picar was held responsible and accountable for the stocks stored in the company's warehouse. In fact, he clearly admitted that he was the only Checker assigned in the company warehouse wherein he was in charge in counting and logging the number of stocks delivered and received in the warehouse, the date and time delivery, and the signing of the delivery receipt. He personally accepted and counted stock deliveries, conducted daily physical count of the stocks in the warehouse, prepared the inventory, and recorded the incoming and outgoing products from delivery drivers. Indeed, Picar could not have committed the crime were it not for the position he held as a trusted employee who had direct access not only to the merchandise of the company, but also its actual and present stock records. The defense that he had no access to the company receipts and documentations do not easily negate the fact that he had control over the merchandise stocks in the warehouse, and could easily engage in sales transactions with buyers and dealers, like that of witness [Marquez]. 28

Undoubtedly, trust and confidence was placed upon Picar and he exploited such trust and confidence by selling the merchandise under his watch without remitting the payments thereof to the damage and prejudice of Wellform.

Time and time again, the Court has declared that the findings of fact by the trial courts, when affirmed in toto by the CA, are deemed conclusive and accorded great respect absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion. 29 Accordingly, the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the RTC, which were affirmed by the CA, as they are fully supported by evidence on record.

The Penalty

The penalty of Qualified Theft is based on the value of the stolen property, which in this case is P10,290.00. Article 309 of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 10951, 30 prescribed the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prisión correccional in its minimum period, if the value of the property stolen is over P5,000.00 but does not exceed P20,000.00. Article 310 of the RPC states that a person convicted of Qualified Theft should be meted a penalty that is two (2) degrees higher than the penalty imposed under Article 309 of the RPC if the theft is committed, among other, with grave abuse of confidence. There being no aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the range of the penalty that must be imposed as the maximum term should be prisión mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal minimum in its medium period, or from 10 years, 2 months and 21 days to 12 years, 5 months and 10 days.

Thereafter, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which prescribes that the minimum penalty shall be "within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed" for the offense, the range of the minimum term that should be imposed upon Picar is anywhere within the period of prisión correccional in its medium period to prisión mayor in its minimum period which has a range of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 8 years. 31

Thus, there is no error on the penalty imposed by the RTC, as concurred to by the CA, upon Picar, which is the indeterminate sentence of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

The Court likewise upholds the order of indemnification against Picar in the amount of P10,290.00, representing the value of the stolen 60 cases of Cobra Energy drinks.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the Decision dated October 30, 2018 and Resolution dated March 29, 2019 of the Court of Appeals, in the case CA-G.R. CR No. 40145 is AFFIRMED. Petitioner Max Picar is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Theft committed and penalized under Article 308 in relation to Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. He is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Likewise, he is ORDERED to indemnify Wellform Trading Corporation the amount of P10,290.00 representing the value of the stolen property.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 12-29.

2.Id. at 35-45; penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser, with Associate Justices Pedro B. Corales and Pablito A. Perez, concurring.

3.Id. at 47-48.

4.Id. at 66-71.

5.Id. 66-67.

6.Id. at 67.

7.Id. at 36-37.

8.Id. at 37.

9.Id. at 37-38.

10.Id. at 68.

11.Id. at 38.

12.Id. at 68.

13.Id. at 68-69.

14.Id. at 69.

15.Id. at 70.

16.Id. at 40.

17.Id. at 42.

18.Id. at 43.

19.Id. at 44.

20.Supra note 1.

21.Calaoagan v. People, G.R. No. 222974, March 20, 2019.

22.Prudential Bank v. Rapanot, 803 Phil. 294, 306 (2017): (1) when the findings, are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the finding are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. x x x

23.People v. Puig, 585 Phil. 555, 562 (2008).

24.Rollo, pp. 21-27.

25.Id. at 69.

26.People v. Pulgo, 813 Phil. 205, 211-212 (2017).

27.Gepulle-Garbo v. Spouses Garabato, 750 Phil. 846, 855 (2015).

28.Rollo, p. 42.

29.People v. Sabado, 813 Phil. 221, 229 (2017).

30. Entitled, 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.

31.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 237982, October 14, 2020.