What is Qualified Theft. – Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes the crime of 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, fish taken 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.
Theft is qualified when the same is committed:
- By a domestic servant;
- By any person who commits the crime of theft with grave abuse of confidence reposed by the complainant;
- If the property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle;
- If the article stolen are coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation, fish taken from a fishpond, or fishery;
- On the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident, or civil disturbance.
From the foregoing enumeration of instances that makes theft qualified, it is clear that the intention of the law is to punish thievery committed with grave abuse of confidence, or the thing taken is of substantial value or used by the victim in his livelihood (motor vehicle, mail matter, large cattle), or substantially affects the livelihood of the victim, or committed at a time of calamity or confusion, when the victim’s focus on his survival, unaware of the theft committed while a calamity is ongoing. Some of the provisions have been amended, such as theft of large cattle, now also penalized by PD 533, theft of motor vehicle, now penalized by RA 6539, as amended (Anti-Carnapping Law). It is the abuse of confidence, or the abuse of circumstances, that makes the unlawful taking qualified.
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, fish taken 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]
Element of taking. – “To establish the element of taking, actual or constructive possession of personal property must be proven-first, by its owner or lawful possessor and second, the subsequent unlawful acquisition thereof by the accused.
There is taking even if accused has possession of the property. – “Petitioner’s view that there could be no element of taking since private complainant had no actual possession of the money fails. The argument proceeds from the flawed premise that there could be no theft if the accused has possession of the property. The taking away of the thing physically from the offended party is not elemental, as qualified theft may be committed when the personal property in in the lawful possession of the accused prior to the commission of the alleged felony.[3]
Property taken must be of value. – The personal property subject of the theft must have some value, as the intention of the accused is to gain from the thing stolen. This is further bolstered by Article 309, where the law provides that the penalty to be imposed on the accused in dependent on the value of the thing stolen. In this case, petitioner unlawfully took the postdated check belonging to the complainant, but the same was apparently without value, as it was subsequently dishonored.[4]
Determination of the value of the goods. – “The imposable penalty for the crime of Qualified Theft depends upon the value of the thing stolen. To prove the value of the stolen property for purposes of fixing the imposable penalty under Articles 309 and 310 of the RPC, as amended, the Court explained in People v. Anabe38 that the prosecution must present more than a mere uncorroborated “estimate.”39 In the absence of independent and reliable corroboration of such estimate, the courts may either apply the minimum penalty under Article 309 or fix the value of the property taken based on the attendant circumstances of the case.40 In Merida v. People (Merida),41 which applied the doctrine enunciated in People v. Dator (Dator),42 the Court deemed it improper to take judicial notice of the selling price of narra at the time of the commission of its theft, as such evidence would be “unreliable and inconclusive considering the lack of independent and competent source of such information.”[5] (Citations omitted)
A final word. Courts dealing with theft, as well as estafa cases, would do well to be mindful of the significance of determining the value of the goods involved, or the amounts embezzled in said cases as they do not only entail the proper resolution of the accused’s civil liability (if the civil aspect has been so integrated) but also delimit the proper penalty to be imposed. These matters, through the trial court’s judicious direction, should be sufficiently passed upon during trial and its finding thereon be amply explained in its verdict. Although an appeal of a criminal case throws the entire case up for review,55 the ends of justice, both in its criminal and civil senses, demand nothing less but complete and thorough adjudication in the judicial system’s every level. Truth be told, the peculiar nature of these cases provides a distinctive opportunity for this ideal to be subserved.[6]
Ownership of the thing taken. – “as long as the property taken does not belong to the accused who has a valid claim thereover, it is immaterial whether said offender stole it from the owner, a mere possessor, or even a thief of the property.”[7]
Petitioner’s view that there could be no element of taking since private complainant had no actual possession of the money fails. The argument proceeds from the flawed premise that there could be no theft if the accused has possession of the property. The taking away of the thing physically from the offended party is not elemental,26 as qualified theft may be committed when the personal property is in the lawful possession of the accused prior to the commission of the alleged felony.[8]
Intent to gain. – “Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act which can be established through the overt acts of the offender, and is presumed from the proven unlawful taking. Actual gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain.[9]Where the accused admitted the actual taking, the burden is on the defense to prove that intent to gain was absent.[10]
“Intent to gain may be presumed as the motive from all “furtive taking of useful property appertaining to another, unless special circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of the perpetrator.[11]
“Intent to gain is presumed in the Information when it is alleged in the Information that there was unlawful taking and appropriation by the offender of the things subject of asportation. In this case, it was established that appellant padded her expenses and submitted fake receipts of her supposed payment for the processing of the transfer of titles, to gain from the money entrusted to her by the complainant. Her intentional failure to properly and correctly account for the same constitutes appropriation with intent to gain.”[12]
No Frustrated Theft or Qualified Theft. – “Insofar as we consider the present question, “unlawful taking” is most material in this respect. Unlawful taking, which is the deprivation of one’s personal property, is the element which produces the felony in its consummated stage. At the same time, without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the offense could only be attempted theft, if at all.
With these considerations, we can only conclude that under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, theft cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted or consummated.”[13]
Corpus delicti in theft. – “Corpus delicti refers to the fact of the commission of the crime charged or to the body or substance of the crime. In its legal sense, it does not refer to the ransom money in the crime of kidnapping for ransom or to the body of the person murdered” or, in this case, to the stolen steel beams. “Since the corpus delicti is the fact of the commission of the crime, this Court has ruled that even a single witness’ uncorroborated testimony, if credible, may suffice to prove it and warrant a conviction therefor. Corpus delicti may even be established by circumstantial evidence.”19 “In theft, corpus delicti has two elements, namely: (1) that the property was lost by the owner, and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking.”[14]
There is no rule which requires the prosecution to offer in evidence the subject matter of the crime, as long as it is sufficiently described.”[15]
[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, citing People 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] Matrido v. People, G.R. No. 179061, July 13, 2009 citing Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code (1998), pp. 687, 691, and Roque v. People, 486 Phil. 288 (2004)
[4] Jacinto v. People, G.R. No. 162450, July 13, 2009
[5] Candelaria v. People, G.R. No. 209386, December 8, 2014
[6] Candelaria v. People, G.R. No. 209386, December 8, 2014
[7] Florenz D. Regalado, Criminal Law Conspectus, First edition, p. 522., cited in Miranda v. People, G.R. No. 176298, January 25, 2012
[8] Santos v. People, G.R. No. 77429, January 29, 1990, citing Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code (1998), pp. 687, 691, and Roque v. People, 486 Phil. 288,304 (2004)
[9] People v. Santos, G.R. No. 237982, October 14, 2020, citing People v. Manlao, G.R. No. 234023, September 3, 2018, and People v. Mejares, G.R. No. 225735, January 10, 2018
[10] People v. Mejares, G.R. No. 225735, January 10, 2018
[11] Consulta v. People, G.R. No. 589 Phil. 464
[12] People v. Tanchangco, G.R. No. 177761, April 18, 2012
[13] Valenzuela v. People, G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007
[14] Zapanta v. People, G.R. No. 170863, March 20, 2013, citing Gulmatico v. People, G.R. No. 146296, October 15, 2007, 536 SCRA 82, 92; citation omitted, italics supplied. See also Tan v. People, 372 Phil. 93, 105 (1999).
[15] Santos v. CA, G.R. No. 100929, January 27, 1994