G.R. No. 228262. January 21, 2019.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. JOENIL PIN MOLDE, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Joenil Pin Molde, the former Accounting-in-Charge of Sun Pride Foods Inc., Las Piñas branch, was charged with qualified theft for the alleged misappropriation of ₱1,149,960.56 in cash and check collections. The prosecution alleged that, by virtue of his position, Molde had custody of all cash and check collections from sales agents and was responsible for depositing them. An internal audit revealed a substantial unremitted amount. Sales agents testified that they directly remitted their collections to Molde. The defense countered that Molde did not receive cash collections, as sales agents deposited cash directly to the bank, submitting only deposit slips to him, and that the checks received were payable to the company, which he could not encash.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Molde of qualified theft, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering restitution. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, giving weight to the sales agents’ testimonies and finding Molde’s denial to be an afterthought. Molde appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he actually took the missing funds.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all elements of qualified theft, particularly the taking of property with intent to gain.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and acquitted Joenil Pin Molde. The legal logic centered on the prosecution’s failure to establish the essential elements of taking and intent to gain beyond reasonable doubt. For qualified theft, the prosecution must prove that the accused personally took the property. Here, the evidence was insufficient. The sales agents’ testimonies were inconsistent and uncorroborated; they admitted they had no receipts signed by Molde to prove they turned over cash to him. The audit report, while showing a shortage, did not directly link Molde to the taking, as it was based on the agents’ unsubstantiated claims of remittance.
Crucially, the prosecution’s own witness, the internal auditor, conceded during cross-examination that the finding of misappropriation against Molde was presumptive, based solely on the agents’ allegations without concrete proof of receipt. The checks involved were also payable to Sun Pride, not to cash or Molde, negating any direct evidence of his ability or action to convert them for personal gain. The burden of proof lies entirely with the prosecution, and its evidence must stand on its own strength, not on the weakness of the defense. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence created only suspicion, not moral certainty of guilt, thereby failing to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.