Facts:
On October 2003, in the City of Makati,
Leandro Cruz,
Emmanuel Manahan, and
Alric Jervoso (petitioners) were, as alleged in the Information dated May 17, 2004, the
Warehouse Supervisor,
Assistant Warehouse Supervisor, and
Delivery Driver cum Warehouse Assistant, respectively, while
Alvin Pardilla (Pardilla) remained at large. They were charged with
Qualified Theft for allegedly taking, stealing, and carrying away stock products belonging to
Prestige Brands Phils., Inc., represented by
Vaibhav Tembulkar, with
grave abuse of confidence,
intent to gain, and
without the knowledge and consent of the owner, in the total amount of
Php1,122,205.00. When arraigned, petitioners pleaded
“Not Guilty,” and trial ensued after pre-trial. The prosecution presented
Vinod Dadlani,
Albert Ding, and
Rebecca Pascual, all of whom testified that petitioners and Pardilla, together with Tembulkar and a few other authorized persons, had access to the warehouse located at the fourth floor of the ITC Building in Jupiter, Makati City. According to the prosecution, only Cruz and Tembulkar had keys to the locks; authorized warehouse personnel were not checked when leaving; and non-warehouse personnel could enter only if accompanied by warehouse staff and were frisked when they left. In October 2003, Tembulkar allegedly reported discrepancies between inventory records and physical count, and inventory updates from January 2003 to April 2003 and from October 2003 allegedly showed about
P1.2 million worth of Prestige Brands products unaccounted. The prosecution further stated that on November 20, 2003, Tembulkar referred petitioners and Pardilla to Dadlani, after which Cruz, Jervoso, and Pardilla allegedly admitted that they stole and sold Prestige Brands products and divided the proceeds; written confessions were allegedly executed, while Manahan did not confess. Petitioners then allegedly stopped reporting for work, and Prestige Brands issued a memorandum on November 27, 2003 requiring a physical stock count and verification. Petitioners denied the charge. They claimed that they were warehouse personnel tasked to prepare perfumes for delivery; that accounting staff frisked them after packing; and that while Cruz and Tembulkar held keys to the warehouse locks, Cruz could not enter the warehouse if the second lock was not opened with Tembulkar’s key. Petitioners also presented testimony that at the time of inventory-related incidents, Dadlani and others pressured them to sign statements admitting theft. Cruz testified that he was unaware of the discrepancies and that his office table and documents were forcibly taken; he said he signed a computer printout after Dadlani threatened disclosure to the media and involvement of their families. Jervoso’s testimony described Dadlani and Mayor Lito Atienza confronting him and telling him to cooperate or face liability, and later a meeting where Jervoso was given a letter he signed without understanding its accusatory contents. Manahan testified that he refused to sign Dadlani’s letter but that Dadlani intimidated him by citing his friends in the media and connections including Mayor Atienza and the NBI; Manahan resigned on November 21, 2003. Petitioners and Jervoso later claimed that on November 23, 2003 they reported to the Makati Police that they were forced to sign confession letters and were even detained until 11:15 p.m. while translating typewritten confessions into their handwriting; they filed a complaint for
grave coercion, grave threats, and incriminating innocent persons on November 24, 2003. The RTC of Makati, Branch 56, in its August 13, 2009 Decision, found petitioners guilty of
Qualified Theft, imposing
ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to
fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum, and ordering solidary payment of
P1,122,205.00; the case against Pardilla, being at large, was archived. The RTC held that petitioners enjoyed access and trust and confidence due to their warehouse positions, that Prestige Brands suffered loss based on inventories, and that the written admissions were admissible as part of
res gestae and not afterthoughts. The CA, in its July 20, 2012 Decision and March 27, 2013 Resolution denying reconsideration, affirmed the RTC, giving credence to the inventories and petitioners’ alleged admissions and concluding that petitioners failed to explain the inventory discrepancies. Petitioners sought review, arguing, among others, that the prosecution failed to prove unlawful taking and the element of loss with competent evidence, and that their alleged confessions were involuntary and uncorroborated by
corpus delicti.
Issues:
Whether the CA correctly affirmed the RTC conviction of petitioners for
Qualified Theft, in light of the prosecution’s alleged failure to prove unlawful taking and the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt, and the alleged inadmissibility or lack of evidentiary weight of petitioners’ written confessions due to involuntariness and lack of corroboration.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: