Elements of the crime. – Thus, the elements of qualified theft punishable under Article 310 in relation to Article 308 of the RPC are as follows: (1) there was a taking of personal property; (2) the said property belongs to another; (3) the taking was done without the consent of the owner; (4) the taking was done with intent to gain; (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against person, or force upon things; and (6) the taking was done under any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the RPC, i.e., with grave abuse of confidence.[1]
“ART. 310. Qualified Theft.—The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation, fishtaken from a fishpond or fishery or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. (emphasis added)
Synthesizing the foregoing provisions, the elements of Qualified Theft, committed with grave abuse of discretion, can simply be enumerated as follows:
1. Taking of personal property;
2. That the said property belongs to another;
3. That the said taking be done with intent to gain;
4. That it be done without the owner’s consent;
5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things; and
6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence.”[2]
Grave abuse of confidence, determining factor in qualified theft cases. – Grave abuse of confidence aggravates and qualifies the crime of theft. When the gravity of exploitation of trust is not proven, the crime os only simple theft and the abuse of confidence shall be treated as a generic aggravating circumstance.[3]
“Theft here became qualified because it was committed with grave abuse of confidence. Grave abuse of confidence, as an element of theft, must be the result of the relation by reason of dependence, guardianship, or vigilance, between the accused-appellant and the offended party that might create a high degree of confidence between them which the accused-appellant abused.”[4]
“The very fact that petitioner “forced open” the main door and screen because he was denied access to private complainant’s house negates the presence of such confidence in him by private complainant. Without ready access to the interior of the house and the properties that were the subject of the taking, it cannot be said that private complaint had a “firm trust” on petitioner or that she “relied on his discretion”36 and that the same trust reposed on him facilitated Viray’s taking of the personal properties justifying his conviction of qualified theft.”[5]
“Without the circumstance of a grave abuse of confidence and considering that the use of force in breaking the door was not alleged in the Information, petitioner can only be held accountable for the crime of simple theft under Art. 308 in relation to Art. 309 of the RPC.”[6]
[1] People v. Santos, G.R. No. 237982, October 14, 2020; Zapanta v. People, G.R. no. 170863, March 20, 2013, Tan v. People, G.R. No. 210318, July 28, 2020; People v. Tanchangco, G.R. No. 177761, April 18, 2012; Baltazar v. People, G.R. No. 164545, November 20, 2006; Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 176504, September 3, 2008
[2] Yongco and Lanojan v. People, G.R. No. 209373, July 30, 2014, citingPeople v. Mirto, G.R. No. 193497, October 19, 2011; People v. Nielles, G.R. No. 200308, February 23, 2015; People v. Molde, G.R. No. 228262, January 21, 2019; Mathay, et al. v. People, et al, G.R. no. 218964, June 30, 2020
[3] Romorosa v. People, G.R. No. 191039, August 22, 2022;
[4] People v. Sabado, et al, G.R. No. 218910, July 5, 2017, citing People v. Cahilig, G.R. No. 199208, July 10, 2014
[5] Viray v. Peoplle, G.R. No. 205180, November 11, 2013
[6] [6] Viray v. Peoplle, G.R. No. 205180, November 11, 2013