G.R. No. 208865 - Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Garcia

The accused, Carolina Boquecosa, was employed as a sales clerk and vault custodian at Gemmary Pawnshop and Jewellery located at Juliana Trade Center, Borromeo Street, Cebu City.
As vault custodian, Boquecosa had exclusive access to the pawnshop’s valuables, an access point that became central to the case.

On or about March 3, 2003, Boquecosa allegedly took, stole, and carried away cash, assorted jewelry items, and cell cards valued at P400,658.80.
The taking was characterized by grave abuse of trust and was done without the consent of the owner.

On or about March 1, 2003, Boquecosa was charged with the theft of specific jewelry pieces, notably a yellow gold necklace and a gold bracelet valued together at P56,600.00.
This act similarly involved a breach of trust as she misappropriated items she was entrusted to safeguard.

A customer’s request for a loan renewal triggered the retrieval of pledged jewelry from the vault.
During the retrieval, discrepancies were noted as one or more pieces of jewelry could not be found.
An inventory conducted by the pawnshop management revealed not only missing jewelry but also unremitted proceeds from class ring orders and cell card sales, totaling an amount reflecting significant losses.
Upon being summoned by management, Boquecosa broke down in tears and admitted to misappropriating the funds and the items, confessing that she had used the proceeds for her personal gain.
Subsequent investigations showed that she pawned the stolen jewelry using fictitious names at other pawnshops, evidenced by letters authorizing redemption.

Inventory reports detailing the missing items and amounts involved.
Pawnshop records including letter(s) of authority executed by Boquecosa authorizing the redemption of pawned items.
Order slips for unremitted class ring collections and sales records for cell cards.

Prosecution witnesses included Mark Yu, Charlo Baron, Juanita Colina, Gina Pelenio, Gina Yu, Melissa Mendoza, and Tirso Gania who corroborated the circumstances of the theft and noted her sole access advantage.
Boquecosa’s own testimony, wherein she admitted to having pawned some jewelry items, was recorded as judicial admission.

Prosecution Version: Asserted that Boquecosa, exploiting her role, deliberately misappropriated the valuables, and her actions were backed by multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence.
Defense Version: Claimed that her admission only pertained to the necklace and bracelet and that others, notably a co-employee named Arlene, also had access to the vault, hence questioning her sole culpability.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) conducted a joint trial for both criminal cases, hearing evidence and testimonies from both sides.
The RTC found Boquecosa guilty of qualified theft, emphasizing her admission and the circumstantial evidence that established the essential elements of the crime.
The case was later affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals, which rejected the defense’s contention that insufficient direct evidence could not justify the conviction.

Whether the circumstantial evidence, in addition to the judicial admission of Boquecosa, sufficiently established beyond reasonable doubt that she committed the crime of qualified theft.
The issue of whether the lack of direct eyewitness identification should preclude a conviction when other corroborative evidence is present.

Whether Boquecosa’s admission regarding the misappropriated jewelry can be considered conclusive and binding, especially given the defense’s argument that such admission only pertained to part of the items.
The legal implications of using a judicial admission to supplement the circumstantial evidence presented.

Whether Boquecosa’s position as the exclusive vault custodian, despite asserting that other employees (e.g., Arlene) also had access, is sufficient to hold her solely accountable for the theft.
The admissibility and weight of testimony regarding the roles of other employees and their potential involvement.

Determining if the valuation of the stolen properties, which covers both the high-value case (P400,658.80) and the specific jewelry items (P56,600.00), supports the classification of the crime as qualified theft.
Whether the computed penalty, which is augmented by the method of dividing the excess value, aligns with the legal requirements for qualified theft.