People v. Molde

 

People v. Molde

G.R. No. 228262

January 21, 2019

FACTS:

                RTC and CA convicted Joenil Pin Molde of qualified theft.  The accused was the accounting-in-charge in Sun Pride Food, Inc. He was with the custody of cash and checks coming from remittances collections of sales agents. He was also in charge of depositing the cash payments in Sun Pride’s account with BPI and sending the checks issued as payments for Sun Pride to its main office in Cebu City. Thereafter, the overall head of accounting noticed the low remittance coming from the Las Pinas branch. The company’s auditor found out about a deficiency of Php1,149,960.56. The accused was ordered to remit such balance but to no avail did he follow. He was suspended from work while on his part he did not go to work despite tendering his resignation and the company not accepting such. According to his defense, [he] received check payments, the checks were payable to [Sun Pride] Foods, Inc., and he was not authorized to encash the same. Also, the BPI bank deposit slips he received were from the sales agents, who deposit their cash collections directly to the bank. Copies of the deposit slips were submitted to him to be attached to the weekly remittance transmittal reports (WRTR).

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the accused-appellant’s guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD:

                No. The elements for qualified theft: 1.) Taking of personal property. 2.) Said property belongs to another. 3.) 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. The prosecution failed to prove the crucial elements of taking property and intent to gain on the part of appellant. The subject checks were issued in the name of Sun Pride Foods. He could not have encashed them. It also appeared that he could not have taken the cash collections of Sun Pride’s sales agents for his own personal gain, considering that what he actually received from said sales agents were only deposit slips of the cash payments, personally deposited by the sales agents themselves with the bank. Absent any concrete proof that appellant indeed received a.) cash collections of Sun Pride’s sales agents b.) checks payable to cash or in appellant’s name. He cannot be adjudged to have taken the same for his own personal gain. The “evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense." Therefore, the appeal is granted, the decision is reversed and set aside. The appellant Joenil Molde is hereby ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence.