CRIMINAL LAW CASE DIGESTS
CASE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs FERNANDO
RANCHE HAVANA a.k.a. FERNAMDO RANCHE
ABANA
G.R. No. 198450; January 11, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs JOMER BUTIAL
GR No. 192785; February 04, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs ALVAREZ
G.R. No. 191060; February 2, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs DILLA Y PAULAR
G.R. No. 200333; January 21, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs GUNDA
G.R. No. 195525; February 5, 2014
DOCTRINE
In a prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, the following elements must
be duly established. There must also be an
adherence to the chain of custody rule. The
Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No.1, Series
of 2002, defines chain of custody as "duly
recorded authorized movements and custody
of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or
plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping, to presentation in
court for destruction." Failure to adhere to the
chain of custody warrants acquittal.
"The evidence of corpus delicti must also be
established beyond reasonable doubt. In this
case, shabu constitutes the very corpus
delicti of the offense and in sustaining a
conviction under [RA 9165], the identity and
integrity of the corpus delicti must be shown to
have been preserved. The chain of custody
requirement performs this function in a buy-
bust operation as it ensures that doubts
concerning the identity of the evidence are
removed. Failure to establish the evidence of
corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt
warrants acquittal.
The attendant circumstance of treachery
qualifies the killing to murder.
The attendant circumstance of treachery
qualifies the killing to murder. In such case, the
testimony of the witnesses established without
a shadow of doubt that it was appellant who
mercilessly killed his brother can be the basis of
the decision of the court.
Treachery in the present case is a qualifying,
not a generic aggravating circumstance. Its
presence served to characterize the killing as
murder.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs CRISOSTOMO y
MALLIAR
G.R. No. 196435; January 29, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs MANIGO Y
MACALUA
G.R. No. 194612 ;January 27, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS AGACER
GR. No. 177751; January 7, 2013
RONDINA VS PEOPLE
GR. No. 179059; June 13, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS TANCHANCO y
PINEDA
GR No. 177761; April 18, 2012
When the offended party is under 12 years of
age, the crime committed is "termed statutory
rape” as it departs from the usual modes of
committing rape.
Rape is generally unwitnessed and oftentimes,
the victim is left to testify for herself. Thus, the
victim's credibility becomes the primordial
consideration. If a victim's testimony is
straightforward, convincing and consistent
with human nature and the normal course of
things, unflawed by any material or significant
inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility
and the accused may be convicted solely on
the basis thereof. An out-of-court identification
is also taken into consideration in order to
ascertain whether such is positive or derivative.
Art. 89 of the Revised Penal Code provides
how criminal liability is totally extinguished. One
of which is par.1, which provides, by the death
of the convict, as to the personal penalties;
and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor
is extinguished only when the death of the
offender occurs before final judgment.
In the case where the victim is a minor who
was said to be suffering from mental
retardation, the court can still allow her to
undergo trial with assistance because of her
sub-average general intellectual functioning.
In the case where the victim is able to recount
the details of her traumatic experience in a
credible, convincing and straightforward
manner, then her testimony bears truth and
can be considered by the court for its decision.
Theft becomes qualified when it is committed
with grave abuse of confidence.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs FERNANDO RANCHE HAVANA a.k.a. FERNAMDO RANCHE ABANA

G.R. No. 198450; January 11, 2016

DOCTRINE

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be duly
established. There must also be an adherence to the chain of custody rule. The Dangerous Drugs
Board Regulation No.1, Series of 2002, defines chain of custody as "duly recorded authorized
movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous
drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in
the forensic laboratory to safekeeping, to presentation in court for destruction." Failure to adhere
to the chain of custody warrants acquittal.

FACTS

The appellant was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Appellant put in a
negative plea. Based on the testimonies of the police chief and members of the Philippine
National Police (PNP), the appellant was arrested during a buy-bust operation in the house of
the same. The appellant was taken to the police station for investigation. The appellant denied
that he was a shabu-seller and denied that he was arrested in a buy-bust operation. The RTC
found him guilty. Appellant appealed to the CA. CA upheld the RTC ruling. Aggrieved,
appellant sought for the reversal of his conviction. In this ultimate recourse, appellant focuses his
principal argument on the alleged failure of the prosecution to establish a continuous and
unbroken chain of custody of the seized illegal drug and the lack of integrity of the evidence in
view of the police officers’ non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. In the case at
bar, there is no record as to what happened after the turn-over of the said shabu. The SPO1 to
whom the specimen was allegedly surrendered during the said buy-bust operation, was not
presented in court to be identified as a witness.

ISSUE

Whether or not the accused is guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond
reasonable doubt.

HELD

No, the accused is not guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs because adherence to
chain of custody rule was not established. In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs,
the following elements must be duly established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took
place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence." It
must also be established that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence is the same as
that seized from him in the first place to ensure that the unnecessary doubts concerning the
identity of the evidence are removed. In other words, there must be an adherence to the chain
of custody. In the case at bar, the alleged apprehending team never ever made a physical
inventory of the same, nor did it ever photograph the same in the presence of the appellant
from whom the alleged item was confiscated. Neither was there any explanation offered for
such failure. Therefore, the appellant was acquitted.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs JOMER BUTIAL

GR No. 192785; February 04, 2015

DOCTRINE

"The evidence of corpus delicti must also be established beyond reasonable doubt. In
this case, shabu constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction
under [RA 9165], the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be shown to have been
preserved. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in a buy-bust operation as it
ensures that doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. Failure to establish
the evidence of corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt warrants acquittal.

FACTS

The appellant was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Appellant pleaded "not
guilty" to the charge. The prosecution averred that the appellant was arrested during a buy-bust
operation at the construction site. The prosecution averred that they also summoned for the
owner of the house being constructed and asked for appellant's belongings. He was given a
backpack which he brought to the police station and found shabu. Two days later, five sachets
of the substance were referred and delivered to the crime laboratory for examination which all
tested positive for shabu. On the other hand, the appellant averred that while he was working at
the construction site, someone approached him and asked for vacancy. A few minutes later,
police arrived and arrested him. SPO2 opened his backpack and placed something inside and
closed it. SPO2 also inserted a P100 bill into the back pocket of his pants and thereafter
presented him to the Chief of Police. RTC found him guilty.

ISSUE

Whether or not the appellant is guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

HELD

No. In a successful prosecution for the illegal sale of drugs, there must be evidence of the
following elements: "(1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The evidence
of corpus delicti must also be established beyond doubt. The chain of custody requirement
performs this function in buy-bust operations as it ensures that doubts concerning the identity of
the evidence are removed. A review of the records reveals that the confiscated sachets subject
of the illegal sale of shabu were not marked. The Request for Laboratory Examination of the
items seized suggests that the seized items were improperly handled. The absence of markings
creates an uncertainty that the sachets seized during the buy-bust operation were the ones
submitted to the police crime laboratory. The lack of certainty therefore on a crucial element of
the crime i.e., the identity of the corpus delicti, warrants the reversal of the judgment of
conviction. In the case at bar, the sachets of shabu confiscated during the buy-bust operation
are totally different from the sachets forwarded to the police crime laboratory and thereafter
presented in evidence. Thus, the prosecution failed to show that the identity and integrity of the
corpus delicti have been preserved. Therefore, the decision was reversed and set aside, and the
appellant was acquitted.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs ALVAREZ

G.R. No. 191060; February 2, 2015

DOCTRINE

The attendant circumstance of treachery qualifies the killing to murder.

FACTS

Appellants Alvarez and Caballero, together with the accused who remained at-large
were charged with the crime of murder for the fatal shooting of Agon. The appellants entered a
plea of not guilty. The RTC found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
Aggrieved, the appellants appealed to the CA, which affirmed the RTC ruling and denied their
appeal. The appellant insisted that the evidence was insufficient to warrant their conviction.

ISSUE

Whether or not the appellants are guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD

Yes, the appellants are guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. The elements of the
crime of murder are: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or her; (3) the killing was
attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC); and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. These requisites have been
established by the prosecution. In the case at bar, the gunman himself testified that his group
killed Agon and one of the responding policemen went to the hospital where Agon was taken
and the latter was already dead when he arrived. The fatal shooting was attended by
treachery, a qualifying circumstance. For treachery to be properly appreciated, two conditions
must be present: (1) at the time of the assault, the victim was not in a position to defend himself;
and (2) the offender consciously adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack
employed by him. These conditions were present in the killing of Agon. The assault upon Agon
was deliberate, swift and sudden, denying him the opportunity to protect or defend himself. He
was unarmed and unaware of the plot of appellants to kill him. Moreover, the means, method or
manner of execution of the attack was deliberately and consciously adopted by appellants, the
same being in accordance with their group’s plan to liquidate Agon. All the elements of the
crime of murder being present in this case, the RTC and the CA thus correctly ruled in finding
appellants guilty of the said crime and that the attendant circumstance of treachery qualified
the killing to murder is present. Therefore, the appellants are guilty of murder beyond reasonable
doubt.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs DILLA Y PAULAR

G.R. No. 200333; January 21, 2015

DOCTRINE

The attendant circumstance of treachery qualifies the killing to murder. In such case, the
testimony of the witnesses established without a shadow of doubt that it was appellant who
mercilessly killed his brother can be the basis of the decision of the court.

FACTS

Appellant Dilla Y Paular, was charged with the crime of murder for the death of his
brother, Pepito. Based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, Pepito was working on his
farm when appellant suddenly appeared and shot the victim with a gun hitting him on his left
thigh. The victim managed to run but was overtaken by appellant who then stabbed him with a
bolo. The son of the victim, Pepito Jr., and Mary Jane Renegado (Renegado), witnessed the
incident. Appellant presented a different version and claimed that it was Pepito who was the
aggressor and that they grappled for possession of the gun and bolo. In the ensuing struggle, he
struck the victim with a wrench. He denied having fired the gun. Lending credence to the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and because the attack was treacherous, the RTC
found appellant guilty of murder. Aggrieved, appellant appealed to the CA. He contended that
there was no direct proof showing that he actually killed the victim. The CA, however, was not
persuaded. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether or not appellant is guilty of the crime murder.

HELD

Yes, appellant is guilty of the crime of murder. The records belie appellant’s contention
that there was no direct proof identifying him as the perpetrator of the crime. The testimonies of
prosecution witnesses Pepito, Jr. and Renegado established without a shadow of doubt that it
was appellant who mercilessly killed his brother, Pepito. Pepito, Jr.'s testimony was corroborated
in all material points by the testimony of Renegado. In fine, both the RTC and the CA correctly
found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and properly
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Therefore, the appellant is hereby
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs GUNDA

G.R. No. 195525; February 5, 2014

DOCTRINE

Treachery in the present case is a qualifying, not a generic aggravating circumstance. Its
presence served to characterize the killing as murder.

FACTS

The victim, Eladio Globio Sr and his son, Eladio Jr. ,were walking along a trail. Suddenly,
when Eladio Jr. was about 10 meters ahead of his father, the latter was waylaid by appellant
and his unidentified companions. The John Does held the victim's arms whereupon appellant
stabbed him several times. Fearing for his life, Eladio Jr. fled. He was able to outrun them and
was able to reach their house. In the morning of the following day, Eladio Jr. went to the house
of his sister and informed her of the death of their father. They then reported the incident to the
police authorities who eventually arrested the appellant. Aside from Eladio Jr., Teofilo Ambal, Jr.
(Ambal) who is a brother-in-law of the appellant, also witnessed the crime. while Ambal was at
his farm gathering feeds for his pigs, he saw appellant who was armed with a wooden pole
position himself at the back of the victim and strike the latter’s head with the wood. The
companions of appellant then held the victim’s arms whereupon appellant drew a bolo locally
known as depang from his waist and stabbed the victim several times. Fearing for his life, Ambal
likewise left the crime scene. RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of murder. RTC considered treachery and conspiracy as qualifying circumstances.

ISSUE

Whether or not the appellant is guilty of the crime of murder.

HELD

Yes, the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder with the
attendant circumstance of treachery. Two prosecution witnesses positively identified him who
waylaid the victim with the help of the conspirators, stabbed the victim several times. There is
also no doubt in our mind that the attack on the victim was attended by treachery. The victim
was unarmed and had no inkling of the impending attack on his person. Undoubtedly,
treachery qualified the killing to murder. "There is treachery when the offender commits [a crime]
against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which
the offended party might make." Treachery in the present case is a qualifying, not a generic
aggravating circumstance. Its presence served to characterize the killing as murder. Since
treachery qualified the commission of the crime to murder, this circumstance could no longer be
appreciated anew as a generic aggravating circumstance to warrant the imposition of the
death penalty.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs CRISOSTOMO y MALLIAR

G.R. No. 196435; January 29, 2014

DOCTRINE

When the offended party is under 12 years of age, the crime committed is "termed
statutory rape” as it departs from the usual modes of committing rape.

FACTS

AAA testified that on the day of the crime, she was playing with her playmates and
wandered in the house of the accused which was below their house. AAA clarified during her
cross-examination that there was a vulcanizing shop owned by her father located in their house
and where the accused was employed. While AAA was at the house of accused, she claimed
that her genitals and buttocks were burned with a lighted cigarette by the said accused. AAA
testified further that her clothes were taken off by the same accused who also took his clothes
off after which he allegedly placed himself on top of her, inserted his penis and proceeded to
have illicit carnal knowledge [of] the then six (6) year old girl. Accused denied the allegation of
rape against him. RTC rendered its decision finding appellant guilty of three counts of rape.
Aggrieved, appellant field a notice of appeal. Appellant claimed that the trial court gravely
erred when it lent full credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. In particular,
appellant insisted that the trial court erred in finding AAA’s testimony credible.

ISSUE

Whether or not the appellant is guilty of the crime of statutory rape.

HELD

Yes, the appellant is guilty of the crime of rape. Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC) provides, rape is committed –(1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman
under any of the following circumstances: (a) Through force, threat or intimidation; (b) When the
offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; (c) By means of fraudulent
machinations or grave abuse of authority; (d) When the offended party is under twelve (12)
years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above should
be present; (2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1
hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or
anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. When
the offended party is under 12 years of age, the crime committed is "termed statutory rape as it
departs from the usual modes of committing rape. What the law punishes is carnal knowledge of
a woman below 12 years of age. Thus, the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and
whether carnal knowledge took place. The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot
have a will of her own on account of her tender years.” In this case, the prosecution satisfactorily
established all the elements of statutory rape. AAA’s uncertainty did not lessen her
credibility. Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs MANIGO Y MACALUA

G.R. No. 194612 ;January 27, 2014

DOCTRINE

Rape is generally unwitnessed and oftentimes, the victim is left to testify for herself. Thus,
the victim's credibility becomes the primordial consideration. If a victim's testimony is
straightforward, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things,
unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility and the
accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof. An out-of-court identification is also
taken into consideration in order to ascertain whether such is positive or derivative.

FACTS

The accused, armed with a knife, through force or intimidation, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously had carnal knowledge of AAA, a 13-year-old minor, against her will. During his
arraignment, appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. AAA testified about the
incident and the following day, AAA disclosed her ordeal to her mother and went to the hospital
where she was subject to physical examination that revealed a laceration on her hymen
consistent with her claim of sexual abuse. In the defense of the appellant, he averred that he
never met AAA, that he is happily married and is not a tricycle driver. Appellant points to several
flaws in AAA’s testimony. However, the RTC accorded full faith and credence to the testimony of
AAA and finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

ISSUE

Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of rape.

HELD

Yes, the accused is guilty of the crime of rape. The court finds that the narration of AAA
to be candid, frank and straightforward. There is nothing therein that appears to be unnatural or
illogical. AAA’s claim of rape is also supported by the medical findings of Dr. Perez. In Vidar v.
People, in ascertaining whether an out-of-court identification is positive or derivative, the Court
has adopted the totality of circumstances test wherein the following factors are taken into
consideration: (1) the witness’s opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the
witness’s degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the
witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length
of time between the crime and the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of the
identification procedure. In the case at bar, AAA’s out-of-court identification of appellant is not
tainted with any irregularity. Therefore, the accused is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
rape.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS AGACER

GR. No. 177751; January 7, 2013

DOCTRINE

Art. 89 of the Revised Penal Code provides how criminal liability is totally extinguished.
One of which is par.1, which provides, by the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties;
and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the
offender occurs before final judgment.

FACTS

The court affirms the November 17, 2006 decision of the CA, which affirmed the August 7,
2001 decision of the RTC, finding appellant Florencio, Franklin, Elynor, Eddie and Eric, all
surnamed Agacer, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. In a letter dated
June 8, 2012, the Officer-in-Charge of the New Bilibid Prison, informed the court that appellant
Florencio Agacer (Florencio) died on February 17, 2007, as evidenced by the attached
Certificate of Death indicating cardio pulmonary arrest secondary to status asthmaticus as the
cause of death.

ISSUE

Does the death of appellant Florencio extinguish his criminal and civil liabilities.

HELD

Yes, the death of appellant Florencio extinguishes his criminal and civil liabilities. Article
89(1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that: Criminal liability is totally extinguished. (1) By the
death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability
therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. In the
case at bar, Florencio died way back on February 7, 2007, in which the information was not
timely relayed to the Court, such that the court was unaware of the same when it rendered its
December 14, 2011 Decision. It was only on June 8, 2012 when the court was informed of the
said death of Florencio through a letter of the Officer-in- Charge of the New Bilibid Prison. Thus, it
is only proper and necessary to declare Florencio 's criminal liability as well as his civil liability ex
delicto to have been extinguished by his death prior to final judgment. The judgment or
conviction is thus set aside insofar as Florencio is concerned.
RONDINA VS PEOPLE

GR. No. 179059; June 13, 2012

DOCTRINE

In the case where the victim is a minor who was said to be suffering from mental
retardation, the court can still allow her to undergo trial with assistance because of her sub-
average general intellectual functioning. In the case where the victim is able to recount the
details of her traumatic experience in a credible, convincing and straightforward manner, then
her testimony bears truth and can be considered by the court for its decision.

FACTS

AAA, a young girl of 16 who was in second year high school, arrived home at 4:00pm,
and immediately proceeded to the communal toilet to defecate. After which, AAA was
surprised when Victor, the accused and her neighbor, suddenly entered the toilet and there and
then threatened her and forcefully inserted his penis into AAA’s vagina. Because of the threat, it
was only after 5 months when AAA finally told her mother. When she was examined by
physicians, it was discovered that aside from having healed hymenal lacerations, AAA was more
or less six months pregnant. The version of Victor was different. He averred that he could not
have raped AAA because during that time, he was in a cockpit in their Barangay and arrived
home at around 6:00pm. RTC still finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of rape.

ISSUE

Whether or not the appellant is guilty of the crime of rape.

HELD

Yes. Before AAA was put on the witness stand, AAA was subjected to a psychological
examination. This was due to the prosecution’s claim that AAA was then emotionally unstable. In
compliance therewith, the DSWD submitted to the court the result of the Psychiatric Evaluation
and Mental Status Examination, in which indicates that AAA was suffering from mental
retardation. She could, however, undergo trial albeit with assistance because of her sub-
average general intellectual functioning. Notwithstanding AAA’s mental condition, the Court
notes that she was still able to recount the details of her traumatic experience in a credible,
convincing and straightforward manner and therefore her testimony bears the ring of truth.
Furthermore, AAA’s testimony is corroborated by the doctors’ findings that she was pregnant
and that her hymen has healed lacerations. It is also noted that where a rape victim’s testimony
is corroborated by the physical findings of penetration, there is sufficient basis for concluding
that sexual intercourse did take place.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS TANCHANCO y PINEDA

GR No. 177761; April 18, 2012

DOCTRINE

Theft becomes qualified when it is committed with grave abuse of confidence.

FACTS

Atty. Rebecca knew appellant for more than 25 years and appellant was treated as a
member of their family. Thereafter, Rebecca hired appellant to work in her office as secretary
and liaison officer. One of appellants tasks as liaison officer was to process the transfer of titles of
Rebecca’s clients. During appellants employment, Rebecca noticed that the completion of the
transfer of titles was taking longer than usual. Appellant suddenly abandoned her job. She
discovered that the latter betrayed her trust and confidence on several occasions by stealing
sums of money entrusted to her as payment for capital gains tax, documentary stamp tax,
transfer tax and other expenses intended for the transfer of the titles of properties from their
previous owners to Rebecca’s clients. When confronted with the charges filed against her,
appellant merely denied the allegations.

ISSUE

Whether or not the appellant is guilty of the crime of qualified theft.

HELD

Yes. It is clear that all the elements of theft are obtained in this case. Under Article 310 of
the RPC, theft becomes qualified when it is, among others, committed with grave abuse of
confidence. The grave abuse of confidence must be the result of the relation by reason of
dependence, guardianship, or vigilance, between the appellant and the offended party that
might create a high degree of confidence between them which the appellant abused. In the
case at bar, the appellant was treated as a member of their family and it was due to this
personal relationship that appellant was employed by Rebecca as a legal secretary and liaison
officer. The Court therefore concludes that appellant took undue advantage of Rebecca’s
confidence in her when she appropriated for herself sums of money that the latter entrusted to
her for a different purpose. The theft in this case was thus committed with grave abuse of
confidence. Hence, appellant was correctly held by the lower courts as liable for qualified theft.