G.R. No. 237982, October 14, 2020
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Yolanda Santos y Parajas, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Yolanda Santos, an OIC Property Accountant of Dasman Realty and Development Corporation, was charged with fourteen counts of Qualified Theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code. The Informations alleged that from September 2011 to May 2013, she took various sums totaling over PHP 400,000.00 from the company. The prosecution presented evidence, including testimonies from the company’s Finance Manager and an internal auditor, showing that Santos, who had custody of and access to company funds, issued and encashed checks for purported payments to suppliers. These payments were later discovered to be fictitious, as the suppliers denied receiving them, and the checks were instead deposited into Santos’s personal account.
The defense claimed the checks were encashed for legitimate company expenses and that the funds were turned over to another employee. The Regional Trial Court convicted Santos of all fourteen counts, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. She appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the element of taking without the owner’s consent was not established.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Yolanda Santos for fourteen counts of Qualified Theft.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on the established elements of Qualified Theft: (1) taking of personal property; (2) belonging to another; (3) with intent to gain; (4) without the owner’s consent; (5) accomplished without violence or intimidation; and (6) with grave abuse of confidence. The Court found all elements present. The prosecution successfully proved through testimonial and documentary evidence that Santos, by virtue of her position, took company funds by encashing checks meant for fake suppliers and depositing the proceeds into her personal account. This act constituted unlawful taking.
The defense of encashment for legitimate expenses failed. The testimony of the supposed recipient-employee was deemed unreliable and uncorroborated. The fact that the checks were payable to suppliers but endorsed and deposited by Santos herself, coupled with the suppliers’ denials of receipt, firmly established her fraudulent intent to gain. Her fiduciary role as an accountant constituted the required grave abuse of confidence. The totality of evidence led to a moral certainty of her guilt. The Court modified the penalty by applying the provisions of Republic Act No. 10951, adjusting the penalties based on the value stolen in each count, and imposed the appropriate indeterminate sentences and solidary liability for civil indemnity.