This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2013-11-11 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| To warrant the conviction and, hence, imposition of the penalty for qualified theft, there must be an allegation in the information and proof that there existed between the offended party and the accused such high degree of confidence[37]or that the stolen goods have been entrusted to the custody or vigilance of the accused.[38] In other words, where the accused had never been vested physical access to,[39] or material possession of, the stolen goods, it may not be said that he or she exploited such access or material possession thereby committing such grave abuse of confidence in taking the property. Thus, in People v. Maglaya,[40] this Court refused to impose the penalty prescribed for qualified theft when the accused was not given material possession or access to the property: Although appellant had taken advantage of his position in committing the crime aforementioned, We do not believe he had acted with grave abuse of confidence and can be convicted of qualified theft, because his employer had never given him the possession of the machines involved in the present case or allowed him to take hold of them, and it does not appear that the former had any special confidence in him. Indeed, the delivery of the machines to the prospective customers was entrusted, not to appellant, but to another employee. | |||||