Voluntary Employee Statements in Company Investigations Can Be Used Against Them in Court

In cases of workplace misconduct, employers often conduct internal investigations. A key question arises: can statements made by employees during these investigations be used against them in criminal proceedings? This case clarifies that voluntary statements given by employees during company inquiries, before formal police custody, are indeed admissible in court, even without legal counsel present. However, it also highlights the crucial distinction between Qualified Theft and Simple Theft, emphasizing that ‘grave abuse of confidence’ requires a specific fiduciary relationship beyond mere employer-employee context.

G.R. NO. 159734 & 159745: ROSARIO V. ASTUDILLO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. and FILIPINA M. ORELLANA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

INTRODUCTION

Imagine a scenario where missing inventory and financial discrepancies plague a business. An internal investigation is launched, and employees are asked to provide statements. Unbeknownst to them, these statements could later be used as evidence in a criminal case. This was the reality for Rosario Astudillo and Filipina Orellana, salespersons at Western Marketing Corporation, who found themselves facing charges of Qualified Theft. The Supreme Court case of Rosario v. Astudillo delves into the admissibility of employee statements made during internal investigations and the nuances of Qualified Theft, offering vital lessons for both employers and employees in the Philippines.

Astudillo and Orellana, along with other employees, were accused of Qualified Theft for allegedly stealing merchandise and manipulating sales records at their workplace. The central legal question revolved around whether the written statements they gave to their employer during an internal inquiry could be used against them in court, especially since these statements were made without the presence of legal counsel. The Supreme Court’s decision clarified the boundaries of custodial investigation and the crucial elements distinguishing Qualified Theft from Simple Theft.

LEGAL CONTEXT: EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSIONS AND QUALIFIED THEFT

Philippine law, particularly the Constitution, safeguards the rights of individuals under custodial investigation. Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, stipulates that:

“(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel… (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.”

This provision, stemming from the landmark Miranda rights established in the US, aims to protect individuals from self-incrimination during police-led custodial interrogations. However, the crucial point is the definition of “custodial investigation.” Jurisprudence, as highlighted in People v. Ayson and People v. Tin Lan Uy, Jr., clarifies that custodial investigation refers to “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” Statements given outside this context, such as during an employer’s internal investigation, generally fall outside the ambit of these constitutional protections.

The crime of Theft, as defined in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, involves:

“(1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.”

Theft becomes “Qualified” under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code when certain aggravating circumstances are present, including “grave abuse of confidence.” This qualifying circumstance elevates the crime and its corresponding penalty. Crucially, “grave abuse of confidence” in Qualified Theft requires more than just a breach of trust inherent in any employer-employee relationship. It necessitates a “relation of independence, guardianship or vigilance” where the employee is entrusted with a high degree of confidence and responsibility.

CASE BREAKDOWN: FROM INTERNAL INQUIRY TO SUPREME COURT

Western Marketing Corporation discovered discrepancies in sales reports and missing inventory at their P. Tuazon branch. Accountant Marlon Camilo noticed a missing booklet of sales invoices and unreported cash collections. This discovery triggered an internal investigation led by branch assistant manager Ma. Aurora Borja and eventually branch manager Lily Chan Ong.

During the internal inquiry, several employees, including Astudillo and Orellana, were questioned. Roberto Benitez, the floor manager, and Filipina Orellana pleaded with Camilo to not escalate the matter. Flormarie Robel, the cashier-reliever, even called Camilo, admitting to stealing invoices and offering to pay. Subsequently, in meetings with Lily Chan Ong, both Orellana and Benitez provided written statements acknowledging certain irregularities. Rosario Astudillo also wrote a letter to Lily, apologizing for “short-over” practices.

Based on these findings, criminal charges for Qualified Theft were filed against Astudillo, Orellana, Benitez, and Robel. In Criminal Case No. Q-96-67827, they were collectively charged for conspiring to steal merchandise using fictitious sales invoices. Separately, Astudillo and Orellana faced individual charges (Criminal Case Nos. Q-96-67829 and Q-96-67830) for allegedly pocketing excess amounts from sales transactions (“short-over”).

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Astudillo and Orellana guilty of Qualified Theft in all cases. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision but modified the penalties. Both petitioners then elevated their cases to the Supreme Court, primarily arguing that their written statements given during the internal investigation were inadmissible because they were obtained without counsel, violating their constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court, in its decision penned by Justice Carpio Morales, addressed the admissibility of the employee statements and the proper classification of the theft. The Court held that:

“The rights above specified, to repeat, exist only in ‘custodial interrogations,’ or ‘in-custody interrogation of accused persons.’ And, as this Court has already stated, by custodial interrogation is meant ‘questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.’”

Since the statements were given during an internal company investigation, not a custodial investigation by law enforcement, the Court ruled they were admissible. The Court also noted that the petitioners did not object to the admission of these statements during trial, further weakening their admissibility challenge on appeal.

However, the Supreme Court differed from the lower courts on the issue of “grave abuse of confidence.” It meticulously examined the roles of Astudillo and Orellana as salespersons. Witness testimony revealed their limited functions: assisting customers and demonstrating merchandise. They had no access to cash collections or control over invoices. The Court emphasized:

“Mere circumstance that petitioners were employees of Western does not suffice to create the relation of confidence and intimacy that the law requires. The element of grave abuse of confidence requires that there be a relation of independence, guardianship or vigilance between the petitioners and Western… Petitioners were not tasked to collect or receive payments. They had no hand in the safekeeping, preparation and issuance of invoices.”

Finding the element of grave abuse of confidence absent, the Supreme Court downgraded the conviction from Qualified Theft to Simple Theft for both Astudillo and Orellana in their individual cases (Criminal Case Nos. Q-96-67829 and Q-96-67830). In the conspiracy case (Criminal Case No. Q-96-67827), the Court acquitted Rosario Astudillo due to insufficient evidence of conspiracy, while affirming Filipina Orellana’s conviction for Simple Theft based on her own admission and corroborating evidence of conspiracy with others.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: LESSONS FOR EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES

This case offers several crucial takeaways for both employers and employees in the Philippines:

For Employers:

• Internal Investigations: Statements obtained from employees during internal investigations, before police involvement, are generally admissible in court. This empowers employers to conduct internal inquiries effectively.
• Documentation is Key: Clearly document all findings of internal investigations, including employee statements. These records can be vital evidence in subsequent legal proceedings.
• Distinguish Roles and Responsibilities: Clearly define employee roles and responsibilities. This is crucial in theft cases to determine if “grave abuse of confidence” exists, influencing whether the crime is Qualified or Simple Theft.
• Seek Legal Counsel: Consult with legal counsel when conducting internal investigations, especially when potential criminal conduct is suspected. Proper legal guidance ensures investigations are conducted fairly and evidence is collected admissibly.

For Employees:

• Voluntary Statements Matter: Understand that statements given to employers during internal investigations can be used against you in court. Exercise caution and think carefully before making any statements.
• Right to Remain Silent (in Custodial Settings): While statements in internal investigations are generally admissible, remember your right to remain silent if you are subjected to custodial investigation by law enforcement.
• Seek Legal Advice: If you are asked to participate in an internal investigation, especially if you suspect potential criminal implications, seeking legal advice is prudent.
• Understand Job Description: Be aware of your defined job responsibilities. The level of trust and responsibility associated with your role is a factor in determining “grave abuse of confidence” in theft cases.

KEY LESSONS

1. Admissibility of Statements: Voluntary statements given by employees during internal company investigations are generally admissible in court, even without counsel present, as long as it’s not a custodial investigation.
2. Qualified vs. Simple Theft: “Grave abuse of confidence” in Qualified Theft requires a specific fiduciary relationship beyond the typical employer-employee context. It’s not merely a breach of trust inherent in employment.
3. Importance of Job Roles: Clearly defined job roles and responsibilities are crucial in determining the element of “grave abuse of confidence” in theft cases.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q1: What is custodial investigation?

A: Custodial investigation refers to questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or significantly deprived of their freedom of action. It’s in this context that constitutional rights to silence and counsel are most critical.

Q2: Are Miranda Rights applicable in internal company investigations?

A: Generally, no. Miranda Rights, or the rights to remain silent and have counsel, primarily apply during custodial investigations by law enforcement. Internal company investigations, before police involvement, usually do not trigger these rights.

Q3: What is the difference between Simple Theft and Qualified Theft?

A: Simple Theft is the basic crime of taking someone else’s property without consent. Qualified Theft is Simple Theft aggravated by certain circumstances, such as grave abuse of confidence, which leads to a higher penalty.

Q4: What constitutes “grave abuse of confidence” in Qualified Theft?

A: Grave abuse of confidence requires a fiduciary relationship where one party is entrusted with a high degree of confidence and responsibility by another. In an employment context, it goes beyond the typical trust inherent in any job and implies a position of guardianship or significant independence.

Q5: If I am asked to give a statement in an internal investigation, should I cooperate?

A: Cooperation is a personal decision. However, understand that any statement you provide can potentially be used against you. It’s advisable to carefully consider the implications and, if concerned, seek legal counsel before giving any statement.

Q6: Can an apology letter be used against me in court?

A: Yes, if the apology contains admissions of wrongdoing, it can be considered as evidence. As seen in the Astudillo case, even an “apology for breach of procedure” was construed as an admission of guilt related to the “short-over” scheme.

Q7: What should employers do to ensure fair internal investigations?

A: Employers should conduct investigations fairly, document all steps, and consider seeking legal counsel. While employee statements are generally admissible, ensuring a fair process is crucial for ethical and legal reasons.

Q8: If I am wrongly accused of theft at work, what should I do?

A: Seek legal counsel immediately. A lawyer can advise you on your rights, represent you in any internal investigation or legal proceedings, and help you build a defense.

ASG Law specializes in Criminal Defense and Labor Law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.