Case Digest (G.R. No. 162575)
Facts:
Florentino G. Duenas, Jr. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 211701, January 11, 2023, the Supreme Court Second Division, Kho, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The Informations filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City, charged petitioner Florentino G. Duenas, Jr. and co-accused Richard Salcedo with Qualified Theft under Article 310 in relation to Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, alleging that on or about May 7, 2004 Duenas and Salcedo, while employed by private complainant Automall Philippines Corporation (Automall), unlawfully took the proceeds of the sale of a 1999 Honda Civic amounting to P310,000.00. Duenas pleaded not guilty. After pre-trial, the case was twice archived by agreement, revived in October 2006, and set for presentation of evidence.
The prosecution presented Automall’s Director for Business Development, Jose Paolo Briones Castrillo, as its sole witness, who testified that Automall purchased a traded-in Honda under a trade-in program with Honda Makati, that Duenas (Automall’s Sales Manager) was entrusted to pick up and sell such traded-in units, and that the Honda Civic in question could not be found in Automall’s inventory though Automall had to pay Honda Makati; Castrillo testified Duenas admitted selling the unit and not remitting proceeds. Duenas wrote a letter dated June 22, 2004 recounting the events. Co-accused Salcedo moved a demurrer to evidence, which the RTC granted and dismissed him.
Duenas delayed his presentation of evidence but eventually testified that he sold the Civic “fast break” and used the proceeds to buy another car (a Toyota) from a certain Annette Gamboa, with the alleged knowledge or acquiescence of Castrillo; he issued several checks totaling P365,000.00, one of which (P40,000.00) was cleared. After the defense rested, the RTC rendered judgment.
In a Decision dated June 15, 2010, the RTC convicted Duenas of Carnapping under Section 2 of R.A. No. 6539 (as amended) and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 14 years, 8 months to 17 years, 4 months, and ordered payment to Automall of P295,000.00 plus 12% interest. Duenas appealed.
The Court of Appeals (CA), in a Decision dated September 24, 2013, denied the appeal but modified the conviction to Qualified Theft under Article 310 in relation to Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, finding that the Information charged the taking of proceeds (not the vehicle) and that the elements of Qualified Theft, including grave abuse of confidence, were proven; the CA sentenced Duenas to reclusion perpetua and ordered payment to Automall of P310,000.00 less P40,000.00 (total P270,000.00) with 6% interest from filing of the Information. The CA denied Duenas’ motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated March 4, 2014.
Duenas elevated the case to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Supreme Court noted the procedural irregularity (the CA imposed reclusion perpetua yet Duenas sought review under...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the petition properly filed under Rule 45 when the Court of Appeals imposed reclusion perpetua (i.e., was the petition’s mode of appeal proper)?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in convicting Duenas of Qualified Theft (Article 310 in relation to Article 308, RPC) — specifically, were all elements established, including unlawful ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)