Scribd
Upload
126 views1 page

Abuse of Confidence: People Vs Jimenez

Theft is considered qualified if it involves a domestic servant, grave abuse of confidence, or certain types of property. Qualified theft carries a higher penalty. Abuse of confidence requires proof of a relationship of dependence, guardianship, or vigilance between the accused and victim that created a high degree of trust, which was abused. Simply taking advantage of one's position does not necessarily constitute grave abuse of confidence. While living together can engender some trust, it does not always mean theft was qualified. Theft by a laborer or mere access to property as part of one's job also generally constitutes only simple theft, not qualified theft involving abuse of confidence.

Uploaded by

Princess Ruksan Lawi Sucor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
126 views1 page

Abuse of Confidence: People Vs Jimenez

Theft is considered qualified if it involves a domestic servant, grave abuse of confidence, or certain types of property. Qualified theft carries a higher penalty. Abuse of confidence requires proof of a relationship of dependence, guardianship, or vigilance between the accused and victim that created a high degree of trust, which was abused. Simply taking advantage of one's position does not necessarily constitute grave abuse of confidence. While living together can engender some trust, it does not always mean theft was qualified. Theft by a laborer or mere access to property as part of one's job also generally constitutes only simple theft, not qualified theft involving abuse of confidence.

Uploaded by

Princess Ruksan Lawi Sucor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Theft is qualified if any of the following circumstances is present (the penalty is next higher by

two degrees pursuant to R.A. No. 1201, June 4, 1947):


1. If the offender is a domestic servant;
2. If it is committed with grave abuse of confidence; or
3. By the nature of the property, which is either:
a. Motor vehicle;
b. Mail matter;
c. Large cattle.
4. If the property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation.
5. If the property stolen is fish taken from fishpond or fisher.
6. If property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any
other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.

ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE
 There must be ALLEGATION IN THE INFORMATION and proof of 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, which the accused abused.
o Ex: where the accused who was permitted to sleep in the house of the offended
party out of charity, stole the latter’s money in that house.
 WHERE THE ACCUSED DID NOT ACT WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE
o Where the accused had taken advantage of his position in committing the crime of
theft but did not act with grave abuse of confidence because his employer had
never given him the possession of the machines involved or allowed him to take
hold of them, and it does not appear that the former had any special confidence in
him, the accused cannot be convicted of qualified theft.
 THEFT BY HOUSEMATE IS NOT ALWAYS QUALIFIED
o While this fact constitutes a certain abuse of confidence, since living together
under the same roof engenders some confidence, it is not necessarily grave.
o The fact of living together in the same house may be accidental and the goods
stolen might not have been entrusted to the custody or vigilance of the accused.
 The mere circumstance that the accused worked as a laborer in the place where the theft
was committed, does not suffice to create the relation of confidence and intimacy that the
law requires. Theft by laborer is only simple theft.
 The accused who smuggled radio tubes from a signal depot where he was working as a
radio technician and, as such, had access to the place where were kept various items
essential for repair and maintenance of radios, and sold radios tubes, is guilty of qualified
theft1

1
People vs Jimenez

You might also like