GR 200308; (February, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 200308, February 23, 2015
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Mera “Joy” Eleuterio Nielles @ Mera Nielles Delos Reyes, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Mera “Joy” Eleuterio Nielles was charged with Qualified Theft. She worked for private complainant Juanita Flores, initially as a house help and later in Flores’s business of guaranteeing purchase orders and gift checks. Her duties grew to include billing, collecting payments from sub-guarantors, and encashing and depositing checks. On July 15, 2004, she collected ₱640,353.86 from sub-guarantors but did not remit the amount to Flores or deposit it into Flores’s account. Instead, she issued 15 personal checks totaling the same amount and deposited them into Flores’s account. All checks were dishonored due to “account closed.” Appellant then absconded. She pleaded not guilty at arraignment. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found her guilty of Qualified Theft, sentencing her to 4 years of prision correccional, as minimum, to 20 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordering her to pay actual damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime of Qualified Theft against the accused-appellant.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA Decision. All elements of Qualified Theft were established: 1) taking of personal property (the collected money); 2) the property belonged to another (Flores); 3) the taking was with intent to gain (presumed from the unlawful taking and failure to remit); 4) it was done without the owner’s consent; 5) it was accomplished without violence, intimidation, or force; and 6) it was done with grave abuse of confidence, as appellant, a cashier entrusted with collections, enjoyed the trust of her employer. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence, including Flores’s testimony about her investigation and appellant’s admission of converting the funds, to be credible and unrebutted. Appellant’s bare denial and alternative theories were insufficient to overcome the evidence against her. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed as the qualified nature of the theft mandates a penalty two degrees higher than that for simple theft. The Court also directed the RTC to issue a warrant for appellant’s arrest and commitment to prison.