G.R. No.

213913 September 02, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JULKIPLI ASAMUDDIN y

SALAPUDIN a.k.a JUL and REY

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

FACTS: Sometime in 2006, Emelina Gloria hired appellant Asamuddin as a

messenger in E. Gloria Money Changer located at Mandaluyong City, and
assigned him a blue Honda XRM motorcycle with plate number UU-9142 for
be used for work purposes. On July 11, 2007, at 12:30pm, Emelina handed
to appellant the cash amount of P800,000.00 and various foreign
denominations with a peso value of P277, 995.00 and instructed him to
bring them to her friend Rina Rosalial, also a money changer, in Mabini,
Manila. Thereafter, appellant left aboard his service motorcycle. Said
instruction and handing of the currencies was seen by Imee, a domestic
helper of Emelina, who was then inside the E. Gloria Money Changer.

After an hour, Rosalial called Emelina and told her that appellant has
yet to arrive in her shop. Emelina called appellant and his wife through
their cellular phones, but to no avail. This prompted Emelina to file a
complaint against appellant at the PNP-CIDG, Camp Crame.

A month later, appellants service motorcycle was found abandoned in

Silang, Cavite, and was returned to Emelina.

On January 16, 2008, an Information was filed charging Asamuddin of

violation of RA 6539 or the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 and the crime of
Qualified Theft. The cases were temporarily archived, but were revived
when appellant was arrested in Zamboanga City in 2009. Asamuddin
pleaded not guilty to both charges and denied the accusation, saying that he
resigned from his job on July 10, 2007 and that the amount handed to him
by Emelina was his last salary.

On October 15, 2012, the RTC of Madaluyong City, Branch 212 found
Regaspi guilty of the crime of Carnapping and Qualified Theft. On appeal,
the CA affirmed the lower courts decision. Hence, this present petition.

ISSUE:
1.) Whether or not there was no consent of Emelina when appellant took the
subject service motorcycle, in order to convict him of the crime of
Carnapping.
2.) Whether or not appellants employment as messenger created a
fiduciary relationship between him and Emelina, that will qualify him for the
crime of Qualified Theft.
HELD:
1.) AFFIRMATIVE. Although it is true that Emelina herself tasked the
appellant to proceed to Mabini, Manila and permitted him to use the service
motorcycle, it cannot be denied that appellants failure to return the
motorcycle to Emelina after his working hours constitutes unlawful
taking. If indeed appellants taking of the service motorcycle was
consented by Emelina, she should not have filed a complaint against the
appellant for the loss of the subject personal property. This just proves that
appellants possession of the subject property after his work hours was not
authorized nor consented by Emelina.

2.) AFFIRMATIVE. One of the elements of the crime of Qualified Theft is

that the crime must be done with grave abuse of confidence. In the present
case, there exists a fiduciary relationship between appellant and Emelina,
as his function of delivering amounts of money to the clients or other money
changers involves a total trust and high degree of confidence from his
employer, Emelina. Emelina routinely entrusts to appellant, on a daily basis,
various amounts of money from P50,000.00 to P500,000.00 without even
requiring the latter to acknowledge receipt thereof. Emelina even testified
that she does not have proof that she handed to appellant P800,000.00 and
various foreign currency on July 11, 2007 because she has total trust and
high degree of confidence on appellant. Tiwalaan lang po. This exhibits
the trust and confidence of Emelina to the appellant which he exploited to
enrich himself to the damage and prejudice of the former.

Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed, affirming the conviction of

Asamuddin of the crime of Carnapping and Qualified Theft.