Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82679:56464-1&catid=1577&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 09:12:23+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 198904, December 11, 2013 - DELIA INES RINGOR, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
DELIA INES RINGOR, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul and set aside the Decision2 dated August 12, 2011 and the Resolution3 dated October 5, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA–G.R. CR No. 32945, which found Delia Ines Ringor (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft punished under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Upon arraignment on October 21, 2004, the petitioner entered a plea of not guilty to the offense charged. On November 4, 2004, the pre–trial conference was deemed terminated. Trial on the merits ensued thereafter.
The petitioner was employed as sales clerk/agent of Peoples Consumer Store (PCS) – a merchandise distributor owned by Honesto Ibarra and managed by Annelyn Ingan (Ingan). As PCS’s sales clerk/agent, the petitioner scouts the towns of Sinait, Badoc, Currimao, and Batac, Ilocos Sur to look for customers, takes note of their orders, and submits the said orders to Ingan for approval. Once approved, the petitioner, together with a driver and a helper, delivers the ordered merchandise to the customers. After delivery, the petitioner turns over the delivery receipts to Ingan. Seven days after delivery, the petitioner would then collect the payment from their customers and remit the same to Ingan.
On March 24, 2003, the petitioner booked an order of grocery products from L.A. Currimao Store (LACS) in the amount of P68,622.90; the value, however, of the delivered merchandise to LACS only amounted to P66,860.90 as one item in the order was not available at that time. After delivering the merchandise to LACS, the petitioner gave a handwritten delivery receipt to Ingan.
Seven days thereafter, the petitioner informed Ingan and her brother Nestor Ibarra (Ibarra) that she lost the money she collected from LACS, claiming that she was a victim of a robbery. Later, the petitioner claimed that she lost the amount collected from LACS in a mini bus. However, upon inquiry by Ingan, the driver of the said mini bus said that the petitioner’s claim was impossible since they only had a few passengers then.
After the incident, the petitioner no longer reported back to work. Neither did the petitioner remit the amount she collected from LACS. Ingan alleged that, during a meeting between her and the petitioner in a police station, in response to inquiries regarding the unremitted amount to PCS, the petitioner stated that she no longer have the amount which she collected from LACS and that she would just have to go to jail.
On the other hand, the petitioner denied that she was a sales clerk/agent of PCS, claiming that she was merely a sales lady therein. While she admitted that she solicited orders from prospective customers in various towns in Ilocos Sur, the petitioner alleged that she was not the only one who received the payments from PCS’s customers. Likewise, the petitioner admitted that she delivered the merchandise to LACS, but claimed that the latter has yet to pay for the same.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the guilt of accused DELIA RINGOR having been proven beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa, defined and penalized under paragraph 1(b) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court hereby sentences her to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum to 10 years, 8 months and 21 days of prision mayor as maximum.
Accused is hereby ordered to indemnify the Peoples Consumer Store the sum of [P]66,860.90 as actual damages.
The RTC opined that the petitioner received the merchandise to be delivered to LACS in trust for PCS, with the corresponding duty to remit to PCS the amount to be paid by LACS. The RTC held that the failure of the petitioner to account for the amount paid by LACS is evidence of misappropriation, which indubitably prejudiced PCS.
The CA opined that the petitioner only had physical possession of the merchandise that were to be delivered to LACS and not juridical possession. Thus, even if there was proof of misappropriation, the CA held that the petitioner could not be convicted of the felony of estafa under paragraph 1(b), Article 315 of the RPC. Be that as it may, the CA averred that the petitioner is nevertheless liable for qualified theft under Article 310 in relation to Article 308 of the RPC, pointing out that the Information that was filed against her sufficiently alleged all the elements of the said felony.
The petitioner sought a reconsideration of the CA Decision dated August 12, 2011,8 but it was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated October 5, 2011.
In support of the instant petition, the petitioner claims that the CA erred in convicting her of the felony of qualified theft; that the prosecution failed to establish all the elements for the said felony. She alleges that the prosecution failed to present direct evidence showing that she indeed took the amount that was paid by LACS. In the same vein, the petitioner avers that the prosecution was not able to establish that it was indeed part of the petitioner’s job description to collect the payments from PCS’s customers. The foregoing circumstances, the petitioner asserts, engenders reasonable doubt as to her guilt for the felony charged.
Essentially, the issue presented for the Court’s resolution is whether the CA erred in convicting the petitioner for the felony of qualified theft under Article 310 in relation to Article 308 of the RPC.
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.
Any person who shall enter an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather fruits, cereals, or other forest or farm products.
What about her failure to remit the value of the goods she delivered? Why do you know of this fact?
I was at home when she came and she did not remit any amount, ma’am.
And so[,] what happened when she informed you ……. Who was with you when she came to your house?
And so[,] what happened upon having been informed, what did Delia Ringor do?
She informed us that she lost the money, ma’am.
Did she inform you why she lost the money?
At first she claimed that she was a victim of a hold–up but when we were about to go and look for it she claimed again that she lost it in a mini bus, ma’am.
When was that information given to you by Delia Ringor, Mr. Witness?
After she reported telling us that she lost the money, ma’am.
So that will [be] how many days after the delivery was made by the accused?
About seven (7) days after the delivery, ma’am.
When the accused failed to report back for duty and failed to remit the amount, what did you do?
When you said you informed her, what form of information?
I called her mother because she disappeared and she fixed a date at the police station for us to talk over the matter, sir.
And were you able to talk the same with the office of the police?
What transpired during your talk at the police?
She told me: “That is no longer existing, I just go to jail,” sir.
The foregoing testimonies clearly prove that the petitioner received the amount paid by LACS for the merchandise delivered to it and that she failed to remit the same to PCS.
The second, third and fifth elements of qualified theft were likewise established by the prosecution; that the amount paid by LACS, taken by the petitioner without authority and consent, belongs to PCS, and that the taking was accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, or force upon things, is not disputed.
Intent to gain on the part of the petitioner is readily apparent from the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses. Particularly, Ibarra, Ingan’s brother, testified that the petitioner told him and his sister that she lost the money she collected from LACS. At first, the petitioner claimed that she was robbed. Later, she changed her story and claimed that she lost the money when she rode a mini–bus. Curiously, once Ingan discovered that her story did not check out, the petitioner no longer reported for work. The foregoing circumstances, coupled with the fact that the petitioner took the money paid by LACS and failed to remit the same to PCS, clearly evince intent to gain on the part of the petitioner.
As regards the sixth element, the petitioner claims that the prosecution failed to show that there was grave abuse of confidence on her part. She pointed out that there was no evidence that it was indeed her duty, as an employee of PCS, to personally collect the payments from the customers of PCS. The petitioner asserts that the failure of the prosecution to show evidence that it was indeed part of her duty, as sales clerk/agent of PCS to personally collect payments from PCS’s customers negates the element of grave abuse of confidence.
Grave abuse of confidence, as an element of the felony of qualified theft, must be the result of the relation by reason of dependence, guardianship, or vigilance, between the appellant and the offended party that might create a high degree of confidence between them which the appellant abused.15 The element of grave abuse of confidence is present in this case. Verily, the petitioner, as sales clerk/agent of PCS, is duty–bound to remit to Ingan the payments which she collected from the customers of PCS. She would not have been able to take the money paid by LACS if it were not for her position in PCS. In failing to remit to Ingan the money paid by LACS, the petitioner indubitably gravely abused the confidence reposed on her by PCS.
1. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, but if the value of the thing stolen exceeds the latter amount the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
Thus, the penalty for qualified theft is reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods. Considering, however, that the petitioner stole P66,860.90 from PCS, the imposable penalty on the petitioner should be the maximum period of reclusion temporal medium and maximum and an incremental penalty of one year for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00, but the same shall not exceed 20 years.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term shall be prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period or within the range of ten (10) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months. The maximum term of the penalty to be imposed on the petitioner is twenty (20) years.17 Accordingly, the CA correctly imposed on the petitioner the indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar–Padilla and Agnes Reyes–Carpio, concurring; id. at 68–94.
9See Matrido v. People, G.R. No. 179061, July 13, 2009, 592 SCRA 534, 541, citing People v. Bago, 386 Phil. 310, 334–335 (2000).
12People v. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 284, 296.
15See People v. Tanchanco, G.R. No. 177761, April 18, 2012, 670 SCRA 130, 144; Astudillo v. People, 538 Phil. 786, 811–812 (2006).
16Seguritan v. People, G.R. No. 172896, April 19, 2010, 618 SCRA 406.
17 Considering that the amount stolen by the petitioner exceeded P22,000.00, the penalty to be imposed on her should be taken from the maximum period of the penalty of reclusion temporal medium and maximum, i.e., eighteen (18) years, two (2) months and twenty–one (21) days to (20) twenty years, plus an additional four (4) years as incremental penalty for the excess P40,000.00 in excess of the P22,000.00 threshold amount under Article 309 of the RPC. However, considering that the penalty to be imposed on the petitioner, together with the incremental penalty, would already exceed twenty (20) years, the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty to be imposed on the petitioner should be set to twenty (20) years.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.