G.R. No. 185757 - Spouses De Guzman, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals

The case involves appellant Joenil Pin Molde being charged with the crime of qualified theft under Article 310 (in relation to Article 308) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The charge arises from an alleged incident on or about May 26, 2010, in Las PiAas City, Philippines, where Molde, then the Accounting-In-Charge of Sun Pride Foods, Inc., was accused of stealing cash and checks amounting to Php1,149,960.56.
The complaint was filed by Henry Dy, representing Sun Pride Foods, Inc., alleging grave abuse of confidence by Molde.

Appellant was hired in 2006 as an office clerk and later assigned as the Accounting-In-Charge for the Las PiAas branch in February 2008.
In his capacity, he was responsible for receiving, collecting, and processing cash collections and check remittances from sales agents and walk-in customers.
His duty included depositing cash in Sun Pride’s bank account and submitting Weekly Remittance Transmittal Reports (WRTR) accompanying supporting documents, such as deposit slips.

In 2010, an internal audit initiated by Grace Maquiling, the head of accounting, discovered unremitted funds totaling Php1,149,960.56 (comprising Php757,998.35 in cash and Php391,962.21 in checks) at the Las PiAas branch.
Following the audit conducted by Sun Pride’s internal auditor Mariano Victorillo, copies of the audit report were furnished to Molde who, however, failed to remit the funds.
Sun Pride issued two demand letters for the unremitted amount and suspended Molde from work, prompting him to tender his resignation and eventually cease reporting to work.

The prosecution asserted that Molde abused the trust reposed on him by unlawfully taking and failing to remit the collections.
Evidence included the audit report verifying the missing amount and testimonies from Sun Pride’s sales agents who affirmed that they directly remitted cash and checks to Molde.
The prosecution maintained that despite Molde’s claim that he only received deposit slips and not the actual cash, the evidence established that he was in a position to perpetrate the crime.

He received checks that were payable to Sun Pride Foods, Inc. and hence was not authorized to encash them for personal gain.
The deposit slips he received were merely evidences that the sales agents had deposited their cash collections directly with the bank.

The defense emphasized that there was no concrete evidence showing that Molde physically took possession of any cash or checks for his benefit.
Testimonies and documentary evidence presented by the defense suggested that the chain of custody for the cash remains questionable.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Molde guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft, basing its ruling on the audit report and the positive testimonies of the sales agents.
Molde was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua along with the order to pay Sun Pride the stolen amount and additional litigation expenses.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision and critiqued Molde’s inconsistent testimonies regarding the receipt of cash and checks.

Molde challenged on appeal the sufficiency of the evidence, contending that the prosecution failed to prove that he actually “pocketed” the money.
The appellate issue thus centered on whether the evidence was strong enough to uphold Molde’s conviction for qualified theft.

Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant took and misappropriated the cash and checks from Sun Pride.
Whether the identification of the specific elements of qualified theft—especially the taking of personal property and the intent to gain—was established.

The impact of Molde’s inconsistent statements during cross-examination regarding whether he received the cash and checks.
Whether bare denials, in the absence of corroborative evidence, can overcome the positive and consistent testimonies of the sales agents.

Whether the deposit slips and WRTRs, which showed that sales agents personally deposited their collections, effectively exonerate the appellant by indicating he did not receive the actual cash.
The significance of the missing acknowledgment receipts and whether their absence undermines the prosecution’s case.