G.R. No. 213913 , September 02, 2015
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Julkipli Asamuddin y Salapudin a.k.a. “Jul” and “Rey”, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Julkipli Asamuddin y Salapudin was charged with Violation of Republic Act No. 6539 (Anti-Carnapping Act) and Qualified Theft. The prosecution established that he was employed as a messenger by Emelina Gloria, proprietor of E. Gloria Money Changer. On July 11, 2007, Emelina entrusted him with cash amounting to ₱800,000.00 and various foreign currencies with a total value of ₱1,077,995.00, instructing him to deliver the money to a friend in Manila using his assigned service motorcycle, a blue Honda XRM. Appellant left with the money and the motorcycle but never arrived at the destination and could not be contacted. The motorcycle was later found abandoned in Cavite and returned to Emelina. Appellant denied the charges, claiming he had resigned the day before the incident and that the money received was his last salary. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of both charges, sentencing him to imprisonment for carnapping and reclusion perpetua for qualified theft, and ordering him to pay actual damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the civil liability by reducing the actual damages awarded to ₱1,077,995.00.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of the appellant for Qualified Theft and Carnapping.

RULING

Yes, the Court affirmed the conviction. The prosecution proved all elements of carnapping: (1) the taking of a motor vehicle belonging to another (established by documentary evidence of ownership); (2) the taking was without the owner’s consent (consent given for a specific purpose was vitiated when appellant did not return and disappeared with the vehicle); and (3) the taking was with intent to gain (inferred from appellant’s failure to return and his disappearance). For qualified theft, the prosecution proved: (1) the taking of personal property (the cash and foreign currencies); (2) the property belonged to another (Emelina); (3) the taking was done without the owner’s consent; (4) the taking was done with intent to gain; and (5) it was committed with grave abuse of confidence (appellant was a trusted employee). The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, affirmed by the CA, is binding, and appellant’s denial cannot prevail over the positive identification and credible testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The penalty for qualified theft is reclusion perpetua, and it is understood that an indivisible penalty carries no eligibility for parole. The civil liability is correctly set at ₱1,077,995.00 as proven.