GR 100929; (January, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 100929 January 27, 1994
EMILIA B. SANTOS, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. RTC Judge of Caloocan City, Branch 121 and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Emilia B. Santos was employed by Sampaguita Garment Corporation (SAGARCO). On April 14, 1987, while holding the position of assistant to the personnel manager, she was caught at the company’s main gate attempting to hand a brown envelope containing 1½ yards of white corduroy cloth belonging to the company to her sister-in-law, Corazon Santos, without a gate pass or authorization. When questioned by security guard Reynaldo dela Cruz, she initially claimed the fabric was given to her by the general manager, Alfonso Arceo. After Arceo denied this, she changed her story, stating it was given to her by Danton Esteves, a former company storekeeper, to be delivered to his girlfriend. She was suspended and later terminated. She filed a labor case for illegal dismissal, which the NLRC decided in her favor, ordering reinstatement and backwages, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, SAGARCO filed a criminal case for attempted qualified theft against her. The Metropolitan Trial Court convicted her, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of petitioner Emilia B. Santos for the crime of attempted qualified theft has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the guilt of the petitioner has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that the prosecution’s version of the incident was more credible and in accord with logic and human experience. The fact that the NLRC ordered her reinstatement in the labor case due to procedural defects in her termination did not negate the criminal liability arising from the undisputed act of taking company property without authorization. The Court held that the findings of the trial court on credibility are accorded high respect. The petitioner’s failure to secure a required gate pass, her changing justifications for possessing the fabric, and her position which presumed knowledge of company rules, all supported the conviction. The alleged delay in filing the criminal complaint and the return of the fabric to her did not undermine the proof of the criminal act. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.