PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JULKIPLI ASAMUDDIN Y SALAPUDIN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Asamuddin

The Case

This is People of the Philippines versus Julkipli Asamuddin, a criminal appeal in which the State prosecutes a former messenger of a money changer business for two crimes committed, the prosecution says, on a single afternoon: carnapping under the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, for taking his employer's motorcycle, and qualified theft, for running away with the cash and foreign currencies entrusted to him for delivery. The case matters for the bar because it gathers in one decision the elements of qualified theft, the nature of grave abuse of confidence in an employer-employee relation, the elements of carnapping, and the rule that intent to gain is presumed from unlawful taking. It also shows how the Supreme Court treats the factual findings and credibility calls of the trial court.

Procedural History

The accused was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 212, under two separate Informations. Arraigned with the assistance of counsel from the Public Attorney's Office, he pleaded not guilty to both, and trial on the merits followed. The trial court rendered its decision on October 15, 2012, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of the Anti-Carnapping Act and of qualified theft, sentencing him accordingly, and ordering him to pay actual damages. From that decision he appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning errors against the trial court's appreciation of his testimony and its finding of guilt. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, and the decision below was affirmed with a modification of the amount of damages.

Facts

In 2006, Emelina Gloria hired the accused as a messenger in her money changer business. His duty was to bring money to other money changers and to deliver money to clients. On July 11, 2007, at about half past noon, Emelina handed him 800,000 pesos and assorted foreign currencies — 660,000 yen, 50 pounds, 530 dirhams, 100 Brunei dollars, and 467 Singapore dollars — to be brought to a friend's money changer in Mabini, Manila for exchange. He left on a blue Honda XRM motorcycle with plate number UU 9142.

At about half past one, the friend called to say he had not arrived. His cellular phone, and later his wife's, could not be reached. At about half past five that afternoon, Emelina and her husband reported the matter at Camp Crame. Sometime in August 2007, the motorcycle was found abandoned in Silang, Cavite. Emelina's stay-in housemaid, who was present when the money was handed over, corroborated her account in all material points.

The accused's version was that he had already resigned effective July 10, 2007; that on July 11 he merely came to collect his salary and then went home; and that his family moved back to Zamboanga on September 7, 2007. He was arrested in Zamboanga City in February 2009. He claimed the charges were a ploy to cover up the business's losses, and that his mother-in-law owed the business money. The trial court convicted him, giving weight to the categorical identification by the prosecution witnesses and treating his flight as evidence of guilt.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in disregarding the accused's testimony and in relying on the prosecution witnesses, such that his constitutional presumption of innocence was not overcome.
• Whether or not the elements of qualified theft, including grave abuse of confidence, were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the elements of carnapping under the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines theft, provides:

Who are liable for theft. Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent.

This is the base offense whose elements the Court checked against the evidence.

Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, which qualifies the theft, provides:

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.

This is the provision that raised the penalty to reclusion perpetua because of the fiduciary relation between employer and messenger.

The Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 defines the offense as the Court restated it:

Carnapping is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.

This definition supplied the four elements the Court applied to the motorcycle.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that denial and alibi cannot prevail over positive, categorical, and consistent identification untainted by ill motive. Emelina and her housemaid both testified that the accused received the money and the currencies, used the motorcycle, and never returned. Denial is intrinsically weak, negative, self-serving evidence that must be buttressed by strong proof of non-culpability. His claim that his family moved to Zamboanga only in September rested on his lone testimony, without corroboration.

On the second issue, the Court first corrected the amount: the qualified theft involved 1,077,995 pesos, not 1,877,995 pesos, as shown by the handwritten list and by the Information itself. It then held that all the elements of qualified theft were proven. The taking was without violence or intimidation and without force upon things; intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking, and actual gain is irrelevant. On grave abuse of confidence, the Court ruled that it must arise from a relation of dependence, guardianship, or vigilance creating a high degree of confidence, and that a messenger entrusted with his employer's money occupies exactly that relation. The absence of a withdrawal slip was immaterial.

On the third issue, the Court held that the elements of carnapping were proven. The taking of the motorcycle was initially lawful, but his failure to return it transformed the possession into an unlawful one. The taking was without the owner's consent, and intent to gain is presumed. The Court explained that gain is not limited to pecuniary benefit:

Thus, the mere use of the thing which was taken without the owner's consent constitutes gain.

That the motorcycle was not recovered from him was of no moment, since recovery is not an element. Finally, the Court deferred to the trial court's credibility findings absent glaring error.

Doctrine

Qualified theft under Article 310 in relation to Article 308 requires six elements: taking of personal property; the property belongs to another; the taking is without the owner's consent; it is done with intent to gain; it is accomplished without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things; and it is done with grave abuse of confidence. Grave abuse of confidence must flow from a relation of dependence, guardianship, or vigilance that creates a high degree of confidence, which the offender abuses. Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking, and actual gain is irrelevant. Carnapping requires actual taking of a motor vehicle belonging to another, without the owner's consent or by violence, intimidation, or force upon things, with intent to gain; even a taking that began lawfully becomes unlawful when the possessor refuses to return the thing, and mere use without consent constitutes gain.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, the conviction for carnapping and qualified theft was affirmed, and the award of actual damages was reduced to 1,077,995 pesos.

Remember This

Memorize this line: intent to gain is presumed from unlawful taking, and the mere use of another's thing without consent is itself gain. Examiners use this case for the elements of qualified theft and carnapping, and for grave abuse of confidence arising from an employer-employee relation.