Facts:
Dr. Robillos hired Arlene as a clinical secretary. Arlene was tasked to collect and remit installment payments from customers who purchased jewelry. Arlene did not give the money she received from Elena. Dr. Robillos reminded Elena of her unpaid installments. Elena replied that she already paid to Arlene. Aggrieved, Dr. Robillos filed a criminal complaint of qualified theft against Arlene. RTC convicted Arlene of estafa involving unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence under Article 315.
Arlene elevated the case to the CA. Arlene argued that the RTC erroneously convicted her of estafa when the charge was for qualified theft. CA affirmed the RTC's findings. Arlene sought reconsideration but was denied.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA is correct in affirming the RTC’s decision in convicting Alrene of estafa.
Ruling: NO
It is fundamental that every element of the crime must be set out in the lnformation to avoid surprise on the part of the accused and to afford them the opportunity to suitably prepare their defense.
Here, the charge against Arlene is designated in the Information as qualified theft. Yet, the CA and the RTC convicted Arlene of estafa involving unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence.
Theft should not be confused with estafa. In general, the two crimes are distinguished by the manner in which the offender in each case acquires possession of the property. The thief takes the item without the owner's consent. The estafador receives the thing and converts it to their own use or benefit.
The misappropriation constitutes theft if the accused was entrusted only with the material or physical (natural) or de facto possession of the thing. Whereas, the conversion constitutes embezzlement or estafa if the accused has the juridical possession of the thing.
It is an essential element of the crime of estafa that the money or goods misappropriated or converted by the accused to the prejudice of another was received by him "in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the same. In this case however, the Information is silent whether Arlene received the money in a fiduciary capacity, or under an obligation to return the same. The phrase in the Information that Arlene "ought to remit"29 the money is insufficient absent the allegation that this duty is rooted in transactions where she acquired juridical possession of the thing.
Arlene acquires only physical or material possession over the unremitted funds. Verily, an employee who receives money or property in behalf of the employer is not vested with juridical possession but only physical or material possession.
The prosecution established only simple theft and failed to establish the element of grave abuse of confidence. In qualified theft, the taking must be the result of a relation by reason of dependence, guardianship, or vigilance, between the accused and the offended party that has created a high degree of confidence between them.
Here, it was not proven that Dr. Robillos had special trust, or high degree of confidence in Arlene. The allegation in the Information that Arlene is a "secretary/collector" of Dr. Robillos does not by itself, without more, create the relation of confidence and intimacy required in qualified theft.
The circumstances do not show that Arlene's job was instrumental in facilitating the taking of the money. There is no evidence that Arlene could not have committed the crime had she not been holding the position of a secretary or collector. To reiterate, abuse of confidence must be grave. On this point, the Court is convinced that Arlene took advantage of her position in committing the crime but not on the level of grave abuse of confidence. Thus, Arlene is guilty only of simple theft.