Title
People vs. Asamuddin y Salapudin
Case
G.R. No. 213913
Decision Date
Sep 2, 2015
Messenger entrusted with cash and motorcycle failed to deliver, abandoned vehicle, convicted of carnapping and qualified theft due to abuse of trust.
carnapping
qualified theft
motorcycle theft
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 213913)

Factual Background

On July 11, 2007, Emelina Gloria y Umali (Emelina), proprietor of E. Gloria Money Changer in Mandaluyong City, entrusted appellant, then employed as a messenger, with cash amounting to P800,000.00 and various foreign currencies amounting in peso value to P277,995.00, for delivery to a money changer in Mabini, Manila. Emelina issued no written acknowledgement of the transaction because she routinely trusted appellant and counted the monies before handing them over. Appellant was assigned and used a blue Honda XRM service motorcycle with plate number UU-9142 for his deliveries. After leaving the shop, appellant did not arrive at the designated money changer and could not be reached by telephone. Emelina filed a complaint with the PNP-CIDG. The motorcycle was later found abandoned in Silang, Cavite, and returned to Emelina.

Charges

Two informations were filed against appellant on January 16, 2008. In Criminal Case No. MC08-11421 he was charged with violation of R.A. No. 6539 for the unlawful taking of the Honda XRM motorcycle valued at P49,000.00 belonging to Emelina. In Criminal Case No. MC08-11422 he was charged with Qualified Theft for the taking of cash and foreign currencies with an aggregate peso value of P1,077,995.00, alleged to have been taken with grave abuse of confidence while employed as a messenger of E. Gloria Money Changer.

Trial Proceedings and Prosecution Evidence

At trial the prosecution presented the testimony of Emelina and her domestic helper Imee Gerbon. Documentary exhibits included Exhibit "F," the list of currencies Emelina entrusted to appellant on July 11, 2007; and Exhibits "I," "J," and "K," documents from Triumph JT Marketing Corporation establishing that the Honda XRM motorcycle with plate number UU-9142 was purchased by Emelina’s husband. Emelina testified to handing the specified amounts to appellant at about 12:30 p.m., instructing him to deliver them to a money changer in Mabini, and that appellant left on the service motorcycle and never returned the monies or the motorcycle as directed.

Defense Case

Appellant testified as the sole defense witness and denied committing the offenses. He admitted employment as a messenger beginning in October 2006 but asserted that he resigned on July 10, 2007. He claimed that the monies given on July 11, 2007 were payment of his last salary for July 1 to 10, 2007. Appellant also explained that his family returned to Zamboanga City in September 2007 due to the high cost of living in Metro Manila. No documentary evidence or independent witnesses corroborated appellant’s asserted nonculpability.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both carnapping under R.A. No. 6539 and Qualified Theft. The RTC sentenced him to an indeterminate term of fourteen years and eight months as minimum to seventeen years and four months as maximum for carnapping, and to suffer reclusion perpetua with accessories under Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code for Qualified Theft. The RTC also ordered appellant to pay Emelina Php1,877,995.00 as actual damages, representing the total amount of money entrusted to him.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Appellant timely appealed to the Court of Appeals, assigning as errors the RTC’s disregard of his testimony and the purported failure of the prosecution to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. The CA affirmed the convictions with modification of civil liability, reducing the awarded actual damages in Criminal Case No. MC08-11422 from P1,877,995.00 to P1,077,995.00 on the ground that the Information and Exhibit "F" established the amount of P1,077,995.00. The CA’s Decision was dated May 22, 2014.

Appeal to the Supreme Court and Supplemental Briefs

Appellant perfected his appeal to the Supreme Court with a Notice of Appeal filed June 16, 2014. The Solicitor General and appellant adopted their respective briefs filed before the Court of Appeals as supplemental briefs to the Supreme Court.

Standard of Review on Credibility

The Supreme Court reviewed the factual findings under the settled rule that trial court determinations of witness credibility are given great weight on appeal because of the trial court’s superior opportunity to observe witness demeanor. The Court noted that when the trial court’s findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals they are generally binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court absent a showing that the lower courts overlooked matters that would materially affect the outcome.

Supreme Court’s Assessment of Prosecution Witnesses

The Supreme Court found no reason to disturb the RTC’s and CA’s acceptance of Emelina’s testimony as candid and credible. The Court observed that appellant failed to establish any ill motive on Emelina’s part to falsely implicate him and that no evidence showed business losses or other reasons to fabricate. The Court also rejected the contention that Imee’s status as a domestic helper rendered her testimony inherently unreliable, reiterating that relationship alone does not automatically discredit a witness.

Analysis of Carnapping (Criminal Case No. MC08-11421)

The Court set out the elements of carnapping under Section 2 of R.A. No. 6539: (1) taking of a motor vehicle belonging to another; (2) the taking is without the owner’s consent or by violence, intimidation, or force; and (3) intent to gain. The Court held that all elements were proven beyond reasonable doubt. Exhibits "I," "J," and "K" established ownership by Emelina’s spouse. Although Emelina had authorized appellant’s use of the motorcycle for work, the Court applied the doctrine that unlawful taking occurs when an accused, who had lawful possession, retains the property beyond the authority granted and thereby acquires possession without consent. The Court cited Roque v. People and People v. Bustinera to support that qualified theft principles apply where lawful possession precedes unlawful appropriation. Appellant’s failure to return the motorcycle after working hours and Emelina’s complaint to the PNP-CIDG evidenced lack of consent. Intent to gain was presumed from the unlawful taking, and appellant presented no evidence to rebut that presumption. Consequently, the Court affirmed the carnapping conviction.

Analysis of Qualified Theft (Criminal Case No. MC08-11422)

The Court recited the elements of Qualified Theft: taking of personal property of another, with intent to gain, without consent, accomplished without violence or intimidation, and with grave abuse of confidence. The Court concluded that these elements were present. Emelina’s testimony and Exhibit "F" established the delivery to appellant of P800,000.00 and foreign currencies valued at P277,995.00, totaling P1,077,995.00. The Court found that appellant’s role as messenger established a fiduciary-like trust relationship adequate to constitute grave abuse of confidence when he breached it. The Court relied on Candelaria v. People and analogous authorities to sustain that a messenger entrusted r

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms