Petitioners were employed as warehouse personnel and delivery driver under Prestige Brands, Inc. which was a distributor of certain high-end products in Manila. They were charged with qualified theft for allegedly stealing some stock products held in the company warehouse located at Jupiter, Makati City in the total amount of PHP 1,122,205.00. The petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The prosecution posits that authorized warehouse personnel were not subjected to any checking and frisking when they leave the warehouse. On the other hand, non-warehouse personnel could enter the same only if accompanied by a warehouse staff, and would be frisked when they leave the premises. On October 2003, Vice President Tembulkar of Prestige Brands, Inc. informed its President, Dadlani, that he would conduct an investigation in the warehouse due to discrepancies in their record compared to the physical count records in the warehouse. On the following month, Tembulkar referred petitioners and Padila to Dadlani and made them execute a written confession that they stole and sold some products of Prestige Brands, Inc. representing the supposed loss in the inventory records.
Meanwhile, the defense avers that unlawful taking was not established in the case as there were no witnesses to the actual stealing of the goods. Petitioners also expressed that they signed their confessions under duress as they were reportedly held until 11:15 p.m. in the company premises and would not be released without signing the confessions. A day after they were purportedly forced to execute their signed confessions, petitioners went to the Makati police and filed charges for grave coercion, grave threats, and incriminating innocent persons against Prestige Brands, Inc.
The Regional Trial Court found the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In its decision, it stated that while there were no witnesses to the actual taking of the said items, the written admissions of Jervoso and Cruz were admissible in evidence. Manahan was also liable even though he did not submit any written confession as he was benefited from the proceeds of the sale of stolen goods.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision and likewise gave credence to the admission of petitioners.
Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals issued its assailed decision and resolution in a manner not in accord with law by upholding petitioners’ conviction for the crime of qualified theft
Ruling:
The petition was granted. Petitioners were acquitted for the crime of qualified theft.
This case is one of the exceptions to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court wherein the Supreme Court shall grant a petition for review on certiorari where the lower court had ignored or misconstrued relevant facts, which if taken into consideration, will change the outcome of the case.
The elements of qualified theft are the following: (1) there must be taking of personal property, which belongs to another; (2) such taking was done with intent to gain, and without the owner’s consent; (3) it was made with no violence or intimidation against persons nor force upon things; (d) it was done under any of the circumstances under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, which circumstances include grave abuse of confidence.
- The RTC confirmed that no one witnessed the actual taking of items belonging to Prestige Brands, Inc.
- Petitioners and Padilla did not have exclusive access to th warehouse of Prestige Brands, Inc. With this, the Court cannot exclude the possibility that some other persons may have had committed the alleged theft against the company. The prosecution also did not present VP Tembulkar as a witness despite him having personal knowledge of the supposed loss sustained by Prestige.
- The Court gives no credence to supposed written confessions made by Cruz, Jervoso, and accused Padilla. This is due to the fact that a day after execution of confession of the supposed theft, the latter promptly reported the incident to the Makati police and filed appropriate charges against Prestige.
