G.R. No. 249815 - Chico vs. Ciudadano

Seven Informations for Qualified Theft were filed against the accused, Bernard G. Mirto, covering Criminal Case Nos. 9034, 9115, 9117, 9120, 9123, 9126, and 9130.
Each Information detailed the alleged commission of the offense, differing in dates (ranging from May 22, 2001 to June 27, 2001), the number of cement bags involved, particulars of check payments, amounts involved, and the bank depositary accounts used.

The accused, serving as Branch Manager of Union Cement Corporation (UCC) for the Tuguegarao City area, was responsible for collecting payments from UCC’s customers.
Despite his position which involved receiving “Pay to Cash” checks as payment for cement sales, he was not authorized to retain these funds or to deposit them in his personal bank account.
Evidence shows that he diverted the proceeds by depositing checks not only into his own account at Security Bank & Trust Co. (SBTC) but also into the account of a third party, a certain Magno Lim, maintained in MetroBank and Equitable PCIBank.

On June 29, 2001, the accused confessed his misappropriation to his office mate, Restituto P. Renolo, by delivering a handwritten letter addressed to Assistant Vice-President Reynaldo S. Santos of UCC.
The letter admitted that he had misused company funds amounting to several millions of pesos through the misappropriation of proceeds from cement sales.
Shortly thereafter, the letter was communicated to UCC management, prompting them to initiate an internal audit.

UCC immediately responded to the confession by involving its top management and instructing the Group Internal Audit of the Phinma Group of Companies to conduct a special audit of the Tuguegarao City Branch from July 3 to July 25, 2001.
The audit team, headed by Onisimo Prado, interviewed several cement buyers/dealers—Wilma Invierno (Rommeleen’s Enterprises), Arthur Alonzo (Alonzo Trucking), Robert Cokee (Philippine Lumber), and Russel Morales (Mapalo Trucking)—who testified on the irregular sales practice.
The internal audit report confirmed that the accused unlawfully received “Pay to Cash” checks and diverted funds amounting to a total of PhP 6,572,750, evidencing grave abuse of confidence.

Upon arraignment on August 6, 2002, the accused pleaded “not guilty” to the seven charges.
In the trial which followed, particularly on March 24, 2008, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 5 of Tuguegarao City, rendered a decision:

The accused was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Theft in Criminal Case Nos. 9034, 9115, 9117, and 9130.
He was acquitted in Criminal Case Nos. 9120, 9123, and 9126 due to insufficient evidence or the absence of a showing how he profited from certain deposits.

The RTC sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered restitution of PhP 2,279,350 to UCC.

The accused-appellant contended that the Informations did not adequately inform him of the nature of the offense, and that he possessed only material—not juridical—possession of the checks.
He further argued that, as an agent collecting payments for UCC, he had the authority to keep the funds in trust.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision on August 24, 2009, upholding both the conviction and the penalty, and rejecting the agency defense by clarifying that the accused’s role as a branch manager did not confer juridical possession over the funds.

Whether the Informations adequately and clearly informed the accused of the nature and details of the offense charged against him.

Whether the accused’s possession of the funds was merely material or extended to juridical possession, thereby necessitating a trust relationship.

Whether the accused, by virtue of his position and his duty to collect payments for UCC, could claim an agency or trustee status over the funds.

Whether all the elements of Qualified Theft—including the taking without consent, intent to gain, absence of violence, and grave abuse of confidence—were satisfactorily established.

Whether the imposition of a single sentencing of reclusion perpetua for multiple counts of Qualified Theft was appropriate, considering the principles laid down in People v. Mercado and the limitations of Article 70 of the RPC.