G.R. No. 108670 - LBC Express, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Daniel G. Imperial, then Head of the Maintenance Department of Now Trading Concept Multi-Purpose Cooperative (NTC-MPC), was charged with the crime of qualified theft based on an Information dated November 28, 2008.
The Information alleged that on or about April 25, 2008, Imperial, abusing the trust reposed in him, unlawfully took one roll of Royal Cord No. 14/3 (75 meters in length, valued at ₱5,700.00) from the cooperative.
Imperial was arraigned on January 20, 2009, pleaded not guilty, and the case was eventually tried on its merits.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, Branch 205, rendered its decision on April 26, 2013, convicting Imperial beyond reasonable doubt for qualified theft and imposing an indeterminate prison sentence with corresponding indemnity.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision on June 14, 2016—modifying only the penalty computation—and dismissed a subsequent motion for reconsideration on March 8, 2017.
Following these rulings, Imperial filed a petition for review on certiorari pursuant to Rule 45, challenging the factual findings and alleging grave abuse of discretion by the CA.

Melody A. Lorilla (private complainant and Head of Operations and Purchase Department)
Raymond Bantillo (Maintenance Staff)
Geruel Mortilla (General Cashier)
Alejandro Albeza and Abdelgamar Uddin (Security Guards)

On April 21, 2008, Imperial requested Lorilla to initiate a purchase order for a Royal Cord No. 14/3 intended for the urgent repair of a wash tub and dryer in the company’s warehouse.
Lorilla executed the order on April 25, 2008. Bantillo then purchased the wires from the supplier, New 366 Merchandising, and delivered them to the warehouse.
A logbook maintained by security guard Albeza recorded that Bantillo handed the purchased cord to Imperial, who then instructed him to load the item into a Mazda pick-up.
Shortly thereafter, another logbook entry indicated that Imperial took the cord out of the premises.
When subsequent checks by co-security guard Uddin found the cord missing, and later a replacement (a Royal Cord of different specification, No. 16/2) was introduced, suspicion grew regarding the handling of the material.

Subsequent actions included the company’s investigation, Imperial’s suspension (effective around June 7, 2008) and later termination, and the filing of a criminal complaint by the company based on these irregularities.

Imperial’s account acknowledged his request for the royal cord but contended that:

The wires did not arrive until several days after his request.
Due to the urgency of repairing the wash tub and dryer, he instructed co-workers (including Nestor Serrano and his brother Luis Imperial) to source alternative wires.

On April 25, 2008, following his instruction to Bantillo to follow up with Lorilla, the wires eventually arrived and were loaded onto a Mazda pick-up vehicle.
Imperial subsequently discovered that the wires he received (of a different specification—Royal Cord No. 16/2) were not the same as those purchased, prompting him to direct Lorilla to check the stockroom.
The petitioner argued that his administrative role did not automatically confer actual or exclusive control over the company service vehicle, thereby negating allegations of direct possession.
Witness Luis Imperial, a co-worker and his brother, testified in support of his account, reinforcing his claim that he did not unlawfully appropriate the ordered material.

The logbook entries and the testimonies of prosecution witnesses established that Imperial had specifically requested the purchase order and had been involved in the handling of the royal cord.
The fact that Imperial returned a cord of different specification (Royal Cord No. 16/2) did not absolve him of criminal liability as it did not rectify the absence of the originally ordered item.
Imperial’s actions, viewed in the light of his office and conduct, demonstrated an intent to gain coupled with a grave abuse of confidence reposed in him.

The CA maintained that the evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to affirm Imperial’s conviction for qualified theft under Articles 310 and 308 of the Revised Penal Code.

Imperial contended that the CA’s findings were based on an improper assessment of circumstantial evidence and failed to account for key defense testimony, particularly that of Luis Imperial.
He argued that without definitive evidence establishing actual or constructive possession of the royal cord, the corpus delicti of qualified theft was not met.
The petitioner further maintained that the evidentiary gaps and inconsistencies warranted a review of the CA’s findings on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error by affirming the conviction of Daniel G. Imperial for qualified theft.
Whether the prosecution established all the elements of qualified theft — particularly actual or constructive possession and the intent to gain — beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the reliance solely on circumstantial evidence, without excluding the possibility that another person might have taken the royal cord, warrants the conclusion of Imperial’s guilt.
Whether the failure to properly consider the defense testimony, notably that of Luis Imperial, constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
Whether the absence of definitive proof regarding the transfer of possession of the royal cord undermines the establishment of corpus delicti for the crime charged.