Title
People vs. Molde
Case
G.R. No. 228262
Decision Date
Jan 21, 2019
Appellant, a former accounting officer, was acquitted of qualified theft as the prosecution failed to prove he took or intended to gain from unremitted cash and checks payable to his employer.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 164375)

Antecedent Facts

Joenil Pin Molde was charged with qualified theft defined under Article 310, in relation to Article 308, of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The charge stemmed from an incident occurring on May 26, 2010, where Molde, serving as the Accounting-in-Charge at Sun Pride Foods, was accused of stealing PHP 1,149,960.56 from the company. Molde pleaded not guilty during his arraignment, which occurred on November 15, 2010.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution's narrative depicted Molde as having significant responsibilities at Sun Pride, particularly managing cash transactions and overseeing deposits to the company’s bank account. An investigation initiated by the company's head of accounting revealed that Molde had failed to remit cash collections totaling PHP 1,149,960.56, which triggered a series of demand letters and ultimately his suspension when he resigned shortly thereafter.

Version of the Defense

Molde refuted the allegations, asserting that he did not pocket any cash or checks since he was not authorized to encash checks issued to Sun Pride. He contended that the cash deposited in the bank was done directly by the sales agents, and he merely collected accompanying documentation like deposit slips.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The RTC found Molde guilty of qualified theft. The court stated that as the Accounting-in-Charge, he was authorized to manage cash collections, making his failure to remit significant amounts a breach of trust. The RTC sentenced Molde to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay restitution to Sun Pride.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision, reinforcing that the prosecution met its burden of proof. The CA noted inconsistencies in Molde's defense, highlighting that his denial of receiving cash and checks diminished his credibility, particularly as he initially admitted to receiving these funds during cross-examination.

The Issue

Molde appealed the CA’s decision, raising a singular issue concerning whether his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt, particularly contesting the prosecution's evidence that he had pocketed the missing cash and checks.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court's analysis focused on the elements required for a conviction for qualified theft. The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Molde took personal property with intent to gain. It particularly noted that since the checks were ma

...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.