G.R. No. 193479; October 19, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BERNARD G. MIRTO, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Bernard G. Mirto was the Branch Manager of Union Cement Corporation (UCC) for the Tuguegarao City area. Seven Informations for Qualified Theft were filed against him, detailing that on various dates from May to June 2001, he took, stole, and deposited into his personal bank account or the accounts of a certain Magno Lim the proceeds from the sale of UCC cement bags, which were paid to him by various purchasers (Philippine Lumber, Mapalo Trucking, Alonzo Trucking, and Rommeleens Enterprises) in the form of “Pay to Cash” checks, without the knowledge and consent of UCC and in grave abuse of confidence. The total amount involved in the seven cases was PhP 6,572,750.
The discovery began on June 29, 2001, when Mirto confided to his office mate, Branch Manager Restituto P. Renolo, that he had misappropriated company funds. Renolo found and later faxed to UCC Assistant Vice-President Reynaldo S. Santos a handwritten letter from Mirto admitting the theft and enumerating the accounts and amounts. A special audit confirmed the misappropriation. In a meeting with UCC officials, Mirto admitted misusing company money and pleaded not to be terminated, offering to pay back the amount. At arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted him in three cases (Nos. 9120, 9123, 9126) but found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Theft in four cases (Nos. 9034, 9115, 9117, 9130). The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant for the crime of Qualified Theft.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that all elements of Qualified Theft were proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking was done with intent to gain; (4) the taking was done without the owner’s consent; (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things; and (6) the taking was done with grave abuse of confidence. As Branch Manager, Mirto had custody and administrative control over the company’s collections and funds. By diverting cement sales, instructing payment via “Pay to Cash” checks payable to himself, and depositing the proceeds into his personal account or that of an associate without remitting them to UCC, he committed theft with grave abuse of the confidence reposed in him by his employer. His handwritten admission letter and subsequent oral admissions to company officials, corroborated by audit findings and witness testimonies, constituted conclusive proof of his guilt. The defense of denial could not prevail over this positive evidence. The penalty imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, was within the range prescribed by law for Qualified Theft.