G.R. No. 200081 . June 08, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDGARDO T. CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Private complainant Eduardo Carlos established Chromax Marketing. He entrusted accused-appellant Edgardo Cruz with the management of the business, including receiving payments, issuing receipts, and preparing daily sales reports. Carlos later grew suspicious of the company’s poor financial performance despite increasing clientele. An investigation revealed discrepancies, including a specific transaction with Miescor where the receipt issued to the client showed a higher amount (₱1,259.00) than the duplicate receipt Cruz presented to Carlos (₱579.00). Furthermore, Carlos discovered a handwritten balance sheet, prepared by Cruz, which acknowledged that a missing sum of ₱97,984.00 was used by Cruz for his personal expenses and which he promised to repay.
The prosecution charged Cruz with Qualified Theft. During trial, Cruz denied the allegations, claiming his signature on the balance sheet was forged and insinuating that another employee was responsible for the losses. He also asserted that he was authorized to give commissions to clients’ drivers, which could explain the discrepancies.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant Edgardo Cruz is guilty of the crime of Qualified Theft.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The crime of Qualified Theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code requires the taking of personal property with intent to gain, without the owner’s consent, and with grave abuse of confidence. The Court found all elements present. First, Cruz, as manager, had control over the company’s cash and sales, fulfilling the element of grave abuse of confidence reposed by the owner. Second, his handwritten acknowledgment on the balance sheet constituted a clear judicial admission that he took the missing ₱97,984.00 for his personal use, establishing intent to gain and the act of taking without consent.
The Court rejected Cruz’s defenses. His claim of forgery was belied by the testimony of the cashier who saw him prepare and hand the document to Carlos. His allegation about authorized commissions was irrelevant, as such authority would not justify the clandestine appropriation of company funds evidenced by the receipt discrepancy and his own written confession. The totality of the circumstantial evidence—his exclusive control over finances, the fraudulent receipt, and his inability to explain the shortage—formed an unbroken chain consistent only with his guilt. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed due to the amount involved exceeding ₱22,000.00, as provided by law.