Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
The Petition is partly meritorious.
accordingly, sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of seven years, four months, and one day of prision mayor , as minimum, to 10 years and one day of prision mayor , as maximum; and ordered petitioners to pay Big G the sum of PHP 9,920.44. [22] In convicting petitioners, the RTC found that the prosecution was able to establish that petitioners, as store managers, abused Big G's trust and confidence, by failing to distribute the shares of the employees' service charges. The RTC noted that, while it was alleged in the Information that the service charges that were stolen from five employees amounted to PHP 21,943.71, only two of themQuetua and Buenaventura testified and proved that they did not receive their service charges. [23] The RTC found petitioners' defense that the service charges were re-computed and withheld from employees who have incomplete requirements and instead distributed to those who have complete requirements was unavailing as petitioners did not identify the employees who received the service charges. [24] Aggrieved, petitioners appealed to the CA. The CA Ruling In a Decision dated May 18, 2017, the CA affirmed their conviction with modification, adjusting the indeterminate period of imprisonment to six years and one day of prision mayor , as minimum, to 12 years and one day of reclusion temporal , as maximum. [25] The CA held that the elements of qualified theft were proven. The CA found the existence of conspiracy between petitioners, Mesina and Mira as the prosecution witnesses unanimously identified them as the persons who implemented the policy regarding the withholding of service charges from employees with incomplete requirements. The CA noted that petitioners who are store managers, enjoyed a high degree of confidence and were responsible for all money received and dispensed for store operations. [26] Petitioners sought reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution dated March 21, 2018. [27] Aggrieved, petitioners filed the instant Petition, to which the People, as represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Comment. [28] The Issue Before the Court The core issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not petitioners are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft. The Court's Ruling The Petition is partly meritorious. At the onset, it must be stressed that in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. [29] Guided by the foregoing consideration, the Court modifies petitioners' convictio