Title
People vs. Mirto
Case
G.R. No. 193479
Decision Date
Oct 19, 2011
Branch manager misappropriated PhP 6.5M in company funds by depositing customer checks into personal accounts, convicted of Qualified Theft.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 193479)

Applicable Law

The decisions are based on the Revised Penal Code (RPC) of the Philippines, specifically Articles 308, 309, and 310 which define theft and the elements constituting Qualified Theft.

Case Background

The case revolves around seven Informations for Qualified Theft filed against Bernard G. Mirto, who was the Branch Manager of Union Cement Corporation (UCC) for Tuguegarao City. The crimes were committed when Mirto misappropriated various amounts collected from customers, which he failed to remit to the company in violation of his fiduciary duties.

Charges and Initial Findings

The Informations describe multiple instances of theft involving differing amounts, with the first case dated June 21, 2001, detailing that Mirto, being a trusted employee of UCC, unlawfully took funds totaling PhP 308,200 from checks issued for cement purchased by clients, directing them to deposit the payments into his personal account instead of UCC's accounts.

Admission of Wrongdoing

Evidence presented during the trial included Mirto's handwritten admission of misappropriating company funds addressed to his superior. This admission, as well as testimonies from customers and internal auditors, established Mirto's grave abuse of confidence as he accessed and utilized UCC’s funds for his benefit.

Trial Court Ruling

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Mirto guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of Qualified Theft in four out of seven counts. The penalties included reclusion perpetua based on the determination that the amount involved exceeded prescribed thresholds, thus qualifying the theft.

Appellate Court Affirmation

Mirto’s appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) was dismissed. The CA affirmed the RTC findings, concluding that he had only material possession of the funds, not juridical possession as he was required by UCC to turn over all payments received. The court also emphasized the absence of any authority granted to him to hold or deposit payments in any account other than that of UCC.

Legal Analysis of Qualified Theft

The case illustrates all the elements constitutive of Qualified Theft whereby:

  1. Taking of Personal Property: Funds collected were clearly personal property belonging to UCC.
  2. Without Consent: Mirto had no right to retain the payments; he was obligated to remit them to UCC.
  3. Intent to Gain: His knowledge and actions in depositing funds into his account demonstrated intent to gain unlawfully.
  4. Gravity of Abuse of Confidence: As a Branch Manager, he was trusted with funds, and his exploitation of this trust met the criteria for grave abuse of confidence.

Conclusio

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.