G.R. No. 165884 ; April 23, 2007
CIELITO R. GAN, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Cielito R. Gan, the internal auditor of Wesleyan University-Philippines (WUP), was charged with ten counts of Qualified Theft. The informations alleged that on various dates from 1982 to 1984, he received cash collections from WUP tellers Elsa Dantes and Mercedita Manio for auditing, but instead of returning the funds for final turnover to the treasurer, he appropriated the money for himself. The total amount involved exceeded PhP 150,000. The prosecution presented the tellers, who testified on the standard procedure: they would prepare Cash Turn-Over Slips (CTOS), turn over the day’s collections and documents to the internal auditor (Gan) for auditing, and he would initial the CTOS upon receipt. The tellers confirmed they turned over the specified sums to Gan on the dates in question.
The defense presented Gan, who denied the charges. He claimed the tellers did not physically hand him money but merely left collections in a cabinet for his audit, and he would then deposit the funds with the cashier. He asserted the missing funds were due to the tellers’ own negligence and that the university president had even executed an affidavit stating she had no knowledge of any theft. The trial court convicted Gan, but modified the charges from Qualified Theft to ten counts of Simple Theft, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner Cielito R. Gan’s conviction for ten counts of Simple Theft.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court found the prosecution evidence sufficient to establish Gan’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The tellers’ consistent testimonies on the procedure and their positive identification of Gan as the recipient of the specific sums, corroborated by his initials on the CTOS, constituted credible and straightforward evidence. The CTOS themselves, lacking the treasurer’s signature, confirmed the money never reached its final destination.
The Court rejected Gan’s defense. His claim that the tellers merely left money in a cabinet was belied by the established procedure requiring his physical receipt and audit. The affidavit from the university president was correctly disregarded, as it pertained to her personal lack of knowledge and did not exonerate Gan; it could not prevail over the positive testimonies of the tellers. The element of unlawful taking was proven, as Gan received the funds in a fiduciary capacity for a specific purpose (audit and turnover) but instead converted them. The Court upheld the modification from Qualified to Simple Theft, as the information did not sufficiently allege the element of grave abuse of confidence necessary for qualification, but all elements of simple theft—taking of personal property, intent to gain, without consent, and without violence or intimidation—were conclusively established.