Photo from Unsplash | Blake Wisz
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
The Supreme Court found two Shakey’s managers guilty of theft for withholding service charges from employees. The Court ruled that all five elements of theft were present: (1) there was a taking; (2) of property belonging to another; (3) done with intent to gain; (4) without the owner’s consent; and (5) without violence or force. The Court clarified that the crime was not qualified theft because the victims were fellow employees, not the employer; thus, there was no relationship of trust or confidence between them. Absent this qualifying element, petitioners were only convicted of theft in its simple form.
The Facts
From June to October 2009, Janice Teologo and Jennifer Delos Santos worked as managers at Shakey’s Angono in Rizal. Along with two other store managers, they were responsible for handling and distributing service charges collected from customers to the restaurant’s employees.
Big G Philfoods & Entertainment, Inc., the franchise holder of the branch, issued monthly checks to co-accused Diony Mesina for encashment and distribution to the employees. In September 2009, Big G’s accountant, Lorna Alvarez, received an anonymous text message questioning where the service charges were going if not to the employees. This prompted her and executive Esmeralda Sevilla to investigate further.
Sevilla asked staff members to submit written statements regarding the receipt of service charges. Two employees, namely Ingimar Buenaventura and Mark Christopher Quetua, submitted reports stating that they were made to sign payroll sheets even though they never received the corresponding amounts.
During the trial, Quetua testified that he received nothing for the months of June to September 2009, while Buenaventura said he received no service charges for August and September 2009. Both testified that the managers informed them this was pursuant to an alleged company policy.
In response, Teologo and Delos Santos claimed that some employees had incomplete requirements and that the service charges were reallocated only to those who complied. In their defense, they also alleged that the accountant handled the computation, which was later approved by Sevilla. Nonetheless, they still failed to identify any employees who actually received the funds, nor did they report any reallocation to management.
The Issue
The issue in this case is whether or not petitioners Teologo and Delos Santos are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft.
The Supreme Court Decides
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Janice Teologo and Jennifer Delos Santos for simple theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court found that all five essential elements of theft were present in this case:
- The taking of personal property
- The property belongs to another
- The taking away was done with intent of gain
- The taking away was done without the consent of the owner
- The taking away is accomplished without violence or intimidation against person or force upon things
Here, the property involved was the share of employees in service charges. The Court explained that once the amounts had been allocated and the employees had signed the payroll acknowledging their entitlement, the money was already considered to be in their constructive possession. Although the petitioners physically held the cash, it was no longer under their ownership or discretion.
Thus, the first two elements were satisfied: there was taking, and the property belonged to another. The third element, intent to gain, was shown by the fact that the petitioners withheld the service charge shares without distributing them and offered no credible explanation as to what happened to the funds. Their act of retaining control over someone else’s earnings was clearly intended to benefit themselves or another, at the expense of the supposed recipients.
Furthermore, the fourth element was also present. The petitioners’ consent was lacking, as they were falsely made to believe that the taking was done pursuant to a company policy.
As to the fifth element, there was no allegation or proof that violence, intimidation, or force was used in withholding the money. The taking was carried out quietly and deceitfully through an unsanctioned policy.
Having established all five elements, the Court then considered whether the crime could be considered qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code.
Qualified theft requires that the crime be committed with grave abuse of confidence; however, the Court ruled that this element was not met. Although the petitioners were managerial employees that required the trust and confidence of their employer, the victims in this case were not the employer but, rather, the rank-and-file employees who were entitled to the service charges.
With respect to this, the Court held:
“To be sure, the relationship between managerial and rank-and-file employees does not involve nor require the element of trust and confidence. On this score, the qualifying element of abuse of confidence cannot be appreciated in this case. Absent this qualifying element, petitioners must only be convicted of theft in its simple form.” (Emphasis supplied)
The Court also affirmed the finding of conspiracy. Teologo, Delos Santos, and two other managers followed a uniform process in requiring the employees to sign the payrolls and then failing to release the corresponding funds. Their actions demonstrated a common design and a coordinated effort to deprive the employees of their rightful shares.
Lastly, the Court applied the concept of delito continuado, or continued crime. Even though the service charges were withheld over different payroll periods and affected several employees, the acts arose from a single criminal intent. The non-disbursement was carried out repeatedly but under one continuing scheme, making it a single offense of theft rather than multiple separate offenses.
The conviction for simple theft was thus UPHELD.
Source:
- SC Finds Managers Guilty of Theft for Withholding Service Charges from Staff
- Janice L. Teologo and Jennifer Delos Santos vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 238383 | April 02, 2025)
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.