Criminal Law

Janice Reside vs People of the Philippines

image_printPrint this!

G.R. No. 210318 – 878 Phil. 122 – Criminal Law – Book II – Crimes Against Property – Theft vs Estafa – Material Possession vs Juridical Possession – Collector’s Liability

Janice Reside is the principal of Treasury of the Golden Word School, Inc. (TGWSI). She was entrusted to collect and remit tuition fees from students/parents. However, from 2001 to 2005, Reside failed to remit her collections which amounted to Php1.7 million. The school then sued her for estafa. The trial court and the Court of Appeals convicted her of estafa.

ISSUE: Whether or not the conviction is proper.

HELD: No. Reside should be convicted of qualified theft.

In this case, Reside only had material possession of the money she collected. Juridical possession is still with the school and it never passed on to Reside.

A sum of money received by an employee in behalf of an employer is considered to be only in the material possession of the employee. Notably, such material possession of an employee is adjunct, by reason of his employment, to a recognition of the juridical possession of the employer. As long as the juridical possession of the thing appropriated did not pass to the employee, the offense committed is theft, qualified or otherwise. (So there is a difference between receiving money from a customer for your employer’s business and receiving money as an agent of your employer from your employer)

Nevertheless, Reside was still convicted by the Supreme Court for qualified theft (not because qualified theft is necessarily included in estafa BUT because the information against her sufficiently alleged qualified theft).

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

These elements were proven in this case. First, the prosecution was able to establish that Reside, as part of her duty as principal of TGWSI, received tuition fees and other school payments from students and failed to remit the same to the school. Second, the money taken by Reside belongs to TGWSI. Third, the absence of TGWSI’s consent was shown in its attempts to account for the missing money through a review of its books and to recover it from Reside. Fourth, intent to gain on the part of the Reside was likewise established. Intent to gain is an internal act that is presumed from the unlawful taking by the offender of the thing subject of asportation. Fifth, no violence or intimidation against persons nor of force upon things was employed by Reside in obtaining the funds. Sixth, the taking was clearly done with grave abuse of confidence. As principal of TGWSI, Reside was authorized to collect school fees. Such position or relation of trust and confidence was aptly established to have been gravely abused when she failed to remit the entrusted amount of collection to TGWSI.

But is “taking” possible if the offender is already in possession of the thing subject of theft?

Yes. There may be theft even if the accused has possession of the property; if he was entrusted only with the material or physical (natural) or de facto possession of the thing, his misappropriation of the same constitutes theft.

Read full text.

image_printPrint this!

Leave a Reply