The Element in Qualified Theft

Theft, in its simplest form, entails the unauthorized taking of another's property. Adding an element to the crime of theft can convert it to Qualified Theft which then carries a sterner penalty against the culprit. In the Revised Penal Code, one of the elements that upgrades Simple Theft to Qualified Theft is the existence of grave abuse of confidence on the part of the thief. There must be that special relation between one and the other; that a bond of trust and confidence was forged and that same bond was breached by the person supposedly entrusted by the other.

The determination of what constitutes Qualified Theft and Simple Theft was clearly delineated by the Supreme Court in the case of Batislaon vs. People (G.R. No. 256624, July 26, 2023). This article will try to analyze the Supreme Courts articulation on the crime of Qualified Theft by Grave Abuse of Confidence. 

Joy Batislaon worked as a grocery cashier at SM Hypermarket in Pasig City. Sometime in 2005, Security Guard Ryan Pacheco was posted in the front cashier lane observing the grocery transactions when he saw that Joy was not scanning some of the grocery items of a customer, Lourdes Guttierez. SG Pacheco invited Joy and Lourdes for an investigation, and he discovered that Lourdes was the aunt of Joy. The next day, the two were charged with Qualified Theft before the RTC of Pasig City.

The RTC found Joy guilty of Qualified Theft, while Lourdes was adjudged guilty of Simple Theft. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction which prompted Joy to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed Joy's conviction but reduced the crime from Qualified Theft to Simple Theft due to the absence of the element of grave abuse of confidence.

The Court held that: "qualified theft 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." In other words, there must be the existence of trust and confidence reposed in the employee in order to warrant the conviction for Qualified Theft. 

However, at first glance, a grocery cashier, like Joy, can be described as one possessing the trust and confidence of the owner of a supermarket. Considering their job responsibilities—handling grocery items, managing customer transactions, and accounting for payments in cash or credit for items bought from the store—it might be tempting to assume that a grocery cashier caught stealing, whether a product or cash from the register, has unequivocally breached the employer's trust and confidence. Yet, as the Supreme Court clarifies, this assumption is not entirely accurate as it explains the concept of grave abuse of confidence. 

Grave abuse of confidence entails the existence of that trust and confidence first; otherwise, there is no abuse to speak of. For comparison, several cases have found employees convicted of Qualified Theft despite having roles similar to Joy's:

• In People vs. Cahilig (G.R. No. 199208, July 30, 2014), an employee’s tasks in "handling, managing, receiving, and disbursing" money from WPESLAI’s depositors and other funds of the association, have little difference from the tasks of a grocery cashier. Yet, Cahilig was convicted by the Supreme Court for Qualified Theft, not Simple Theft as in the case of Joy; 

• In People vs. Boquecosa (G.R. No. 202181, August 19, 2015), a pawnshop employee who took pieces of jewelry from the store, without the consent of the pawnshop owner was held guilty for Qualified Theft. It can be argued that an employee having access to pieces of jewelry in a pawnshop is no different from a grocery cashier who has access to grocery items and the cash in the register;

• In People vs. Cruz (G.R. No. 200081, June 8, 2016), manager who stole money from the company was convicted for Qualified Theft because his position grants him access to the company’s cashier. Surely, a grocery cashier also has access to the cashier, but Joy was only convicted for Simple Theft; and

• In People vs. Sabado (G.R. No. 218910, July 5, 2017), another pawnshop employee was convicted for Qualified Theft because he has access to the vault containing jewelry and cellphones. Again, this is no different from a grocery cashier having access to grocery items and cash in the supermarket.

However, in Joy's case, the Supreme Court clarified that taking advantage of one's position, by itself, is not sufficient to draw a conviction for Qualified Theft. According to the Supreme Court, the determination of grave abuse of confidence by thieving employees extends beyond the mere existence of the employer-employee relationship. It necessitates an examination of the underlying purpose for which the employer entrusted the employee. Thus, the establishment of an employer-employee relationship, on its own, falls short of constituting grounds for conviction for Qualified Theft. Instead, the prosecution must convincingly demonstrate the explicit bestowal of a special trust by the employer upon the employee. It is imperative that this particular trust is not only acknowledged but also exploited by the employee in question, as they seize the opportunity to misappropriate valuable assets and cash from the employer.

Hence, the reason why the Supreme Court convicted the accused in the following cases for Qualified Theft is because of the existence of that trust and confidence and the resulting breach of that same trust and confidence of the employee. As opposed to Joy's case, there was no such trust unequivocally expressed by SM Hypermarket to any of its grocery cashier, including Joy. Notice the circumstances of each case: 

• In Cahilig, there was grave abuse of confidence not because of Cahilig’s tasks in "handling, managing, receiving, and disbursing" money for her employer. He was convicted for Qualified Theft because she used her position to manipulate the board of directors into authorizing disbursement that eventually led up to her account;

• In Boquecosa, the prosecution established that the accused was entrusted with the vault combination, making her position reposed in trust by the employer. Yet, she abused that confidence and stole from her employer by accessing the vault that she was entrusted to safeguard;

• In Cruz, the manager’s position per se was not the determining factor in finding abuse of confidence. The prosecution proved that Cruz was entrusted to receive payments, issue receipts, and oversee all aspects pertaining to cash purchases and sale of merchandise of the business. Indeed, his position entails a high degree of confidence as he had access to the lists of sales report and the cash of the daily sales. However, Cruz took advantage of this trust and confidence. He exploited his position to take the money and was able to accomplish the crime with grave abuse of confidence; and

• In Sabado, the pawnshop employee was a trusted employee because he was tasked to manage the shop by himself, has the keys to the locks of the shop, has sole access to the vault and knows the combination. His act of stealing in the pawnshop qualifies the crime Qualified Theft because he abused that trust. 

In Joy’s case, the prosecution failed to show that SM Hypermarket of Pasig City trusts Joy or any of its grocery cashier for that matter. Without that trust, there is nothing to exploit. In effect, there is no grave abuse of confidence to speak of and, hence, no criminal liability for Qualified Theft, but only Simple Theft. The Court noted the following circumstances proving that there was no such trust:

• The fact that Joy handles grocery items does not mean that her job entails a high degree of confidence;

• Her job as a grocery cashier does not have exclusive access, management and discretion over the employer’s properties and funds;

• There are different layers of monitoring as a bagger or another personnel checks and tallies the items with the receipt after the cashier scanned the goods;

• A supervisor intervenes and enter codes in the cash register in case of errors in scanning items;

• A cashier cannot decide alone when there are issues with the grocery items that are bought; and

• There are hidden cameras installed around the premises of the store, and security personnel taking rounds monitoring the actions of grocery employees, especially cashiers.

Setting up these precautions to ensure that no shenanigans are being employed by the grocery employees cannot hardly lead to the conclusion that SM Hypermarket had trust and confidence in its cashiers. On this score, the Supreme Court held that Joy took advantage of her position but not to the extent that she gravely abused the confidence of her employer. Thus, she was only convicted of Simple Theft, with a lesser penalty.

The takeaway in this case is that taking advantage of one's position in a company in the context of stealing from an employer is not enough to pin the crime of Qualified Theft. Having that pompous job title, gaining access to company files, properties or funds, carrying that access card that allows you to roam around even at the most unauthorized premises in the workplace, or even being next to the office of the "Big Boss" are not necessarily the determining factors that constitutes the crime of Qualified Theft. Essentially, there must be that clear manifestation of trust and confidence from the employer to the employee, and that same trust and confidence was breached by that supposedly trusted employee, resulting in criminal gain. That is what culminates the element of Grave Abuse of Confidence in Qualified Theft.