Criminal Liability for Leaving a Job With Company Sales Cash (Philippines)

This article explains, in Philippine law, what happens when an employee leaves work—whether by absconding, resigning, or simply not returning—with company sales money or other funds that should have been turned over to the employer. It covers possible crimes, elements, penalties, procedure, defenses, and practical tips for employers and employees.

1) The baseline idea: leaving a job is not a crime; leaving with entrusted cash can be.

There’s no crime in merely resigning or not reporting back to work. Criminal exposure arises when money or property belonging to the employer is taken, kept, or misused despite a legal duty to deliver or return it. In the Philippines, that conduct is usually prosecuted as:

Qualified Theft (Arts. 308–310, Revised Penal Code), or
Estafa (Swindling) by Misappropriation or Conversion (Art. 315(1)(b), Revised Penal Code).

Which one applies turns on possession and the nature of the entrustment.

2) Theft vs. Estafa: the “possession” test

A. Qualified Theft (with grave abuse of confidence)

Use this when the employee had only material/physical possession of the employer’s cash, not juridical/legal possession.

Typical roles: cashiers, store clerks, tellers who “hold” the money as it’s collected but do not acquire independent authority over it.
Elements (simplified):
1. Taking of personal property (e.g., cash)
2. That belongs to another (the employer)
3. With intent to gain (animus lucrandi)
4. Without the owner’s consent
5. With grave abuse of confidence (because of the employer–employee relationship)

“Qualified” theft increases the penalty for theft when committed by domestic servants, with grave abuse of confidence, or in other qualifying circumstances. The employee–employer relationship almost always satisfies grave abuse of confidence.

B. Estafa under Art. 315(1)(b) (misappropriation or conversion)

Use this when the employee got juridical possession of the money—i.e., it was received in trust, on commission, for administration, or under an obligation to deliver or return.

Typical roles: sales agents/route collectors given authority to collect and hold proceeds; account officers who receive payments from clients to remit to the company; anyone who signs for funds “in trust” and must liquidate them.
Elements (simplified):
1. Money, goods, or other personal property is received in trust/commission/administration or under duty to deliver or return
2. The recipient misappropriates or converts it or denies receipt
3. Such act causes prejudice to another (usually the employer)
4. Demand is not an element, but written demand helps prove misappropriation and reckoning of amounts.

Key distinction:

If the employer retains juridical possession and the employee just “handles” cash → Qualified Theft.
If the employee acquires juridical possession (entrusted to account for and return) → Estafa.

Courts examine job description, internal policies, receipts/acknowledgments, and the employee’s authority to determine which offense fits.

3) Other possible crimes (less common but relevant)

Malversation (Art. 217) if the actor is a public officer or a private person in custody of public funds (e.g., bonded collecting agent of a government entity).
Falsification (e.g., fake liquidation, forged receipts) if documents were altered to conceal shortages.
B.P. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) if the employee issues a worthless check to “cover” the shortage. This is separate from theft/estafa.

4) Penalties (value-dependent; materially increased by R.A. 10951)

Both theft (Art. 309) and estafa (Art. 315) carry graduated penalties based on the value involved, and Qualified Theft is punished two degrees higher than simple theft (Art. 310). The monetary brackets and corresponding penalties were substantially updated by Republic Act No. 10951 (2017).

Because the brackets are detailed, practitioners typically consult the updated tables when filing or charging. In brief:

The higher the amount, the higher the penalty (ranging from arresto to prision mayor and beyond, depending on value and qualifiers).
Qualified Theft significantly ratchets up the penalty compared to estafa/theft at the same amount.
Recidivism, habituality, or use of falsified documents can further affect sentencing.

Practical tip: When preparing a case or defense, compute the exact amount (principal + demonstrable shortages) with supporting documents; the penalty and trial court jurisdiction both depend on it.

5) Procedure: from discovery to prosecution

For employers

Secure evidence immediately.
- POS tapes, Z-readings, cash count sheets, deposit slips, collection logs, liquidation reports, acknowledgment receipts, route sheets, CCTV pulls, device logs, custody turnover forms, chat/email trails.
Conduct an internal audit and cash count. Document variances by shift/agent/date.
Issue a written demand (courier/email with proof of receipt). Identify amounts, dates, and deadline to remit or explain. (Again: demand isn’t an element of estafa, but it’s powerful evidence.)
Prepare a complaint-affidavit for Qualified Theft or Estafa, attaching: corporate authority (board or SPA), job description/policies showing possession nature, proof of receipts/entrustment, shortage computations, and demand correspondence.
File with the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor where any essential element occurred (e.g., place of receipt, agreed place of delivery/return, or where misappropriation is established).
Parallel civil action (optional): file a separate civil case for sum of money/recovery of property. Civil actions can proceed independently; criminal acquittal does not automatically bar civil liability if based on different cause (e.g., contract).
Labor action (administrative): If the employee still appears on the rolls, issue due-process notices and impose just cause dismissal for loss of trust and confidence/serious misconduct, with final pay clearance contingent on property/asset return (subject to labor rules).

For employees (accused or at risk)

Consult counsel early. Determine whether your role gave you juridical possession (favoring estafa) or only material possession (favoring theft).
Preserve and present your paperwork. Liquidations, turn-over receipts, bank deposit slips, chat instructions from supervisors, and policy memos can negate “intent to gain.”
Good faith and honest mistake negate criminal intent; mere failure to return without proof of misappropriation does not automatically equal estafa or qualified theft.
Voluntary restitution does not erase criminal liability once consummated, but it reduces civil exposure and may favorably influence prosecutorial or judicial discretion.
Avoid admissions (verbal or written) without counsel; these often become the centerpiece of the case.

6) Common fact patterns (and likely charges)

Cashier closes shift and walks off with the day’s cash. Employer retains juridical possession; cashier had custody only. Qualified Theft is typical.
Route sales agent collects from stores under a written “cash collections to be remitted next day” memo, then resigns and keeps the funds. Agent received money in trust/for remittance → Estafa 315(1)(b).
Employee given petty cash/advances for field work, then fails to liquidate and disappears. If entrusted under a duty to liquidate/return → Estafa (misappropriation). If the money was never entrusted to the employee in juridical possession (rare for advances), fact-check.
Collector fakes deposit slips or alters receipts. Estafa plus possible Falsification.
GOCC cashier or barangay collector absconds with collections. Malversation, not estafa/qualified theft.

7) Elements and evidence, more precisely

Intent to gain (animus lucrandi)

In theft/qualified theft, intent to gain can be inferred from unlawful taking and failure to return.
In estafa, misappropriation or conversion must be shown—e.g., spending for personal use, denial of receipt, or unexplained failure to account despite demand.

Role of demand

Not an element of estafa under 315(1)(b), but proof of demand (and failure/refusal) is strong evidence of misappropriation and helps quantify prejudice.

Paper trail that wins cases

Entrustment documents (acknowledgment receipts, dealer/agent agreements, cash custody slips)
Policies/SOPs defining who holds juridical possession
Deposit slips / bank logs and audit schedules linking date-by-date shortages
CCTV/device logs corroborating access and movements
Clear computation of shortages and valuation

8) Jurisdiction, prescription, and bail

Which court? Jurisdiction is based on the maximum penalty imposable (not just the charge name). First-level courts (MTC/MTCC/MCTC) generally handle offenses punishable by imprisonment up to six (6) years; higher penalties go to the RTC.
Prescription (time bar): Crimes under the RPC prescribe based on the penalty actually imposable (Art. 90). Because theft/estafa penalties vary with the amount, prescriptive periods vary, typically from five (5) to twenty (20) years.
Bail: Generally available as a matter of right for penalties not reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment; the amount depends on the charge and alleged amount.

9) Labor law interface (criminal vs. administrative vs. civil)

Independent tracks: Employers may dismiss for just cause (loss of trust/serious dishonesty) and pursue criminal and/or civil action.
Due process: Two-notice rule and opportunity to be heard still apply to dismissal; criminal filing doesn’t substitute for due process in labor.
Final pay & clearance: Employers can withhold clearance for unreturned funds/property, but cannot arbitrarily forfeit earned wages outside legal set-off rules or without lawful basis.

10) Defenses that commonly succeed

No entrustment / wrong offense. If the employee had only material possession yet the charge is estafa (or vice-versa), the case may fail.
Good faith / absence of animus lucrandi. E.g., money placed in a sealed store safe pending manager’s presence; or remittance delayed by bank cutoff with proof of attempted deposit.
Accounting error, not conversion. Demonstrable reconciliation later, with credible documents, can defeat misappropriation.
Lack of credible computation. If the shortage is speculative or unsupported, the “prejudice” element (estafa) or value (for penalty) may collapse.
Voluntary return before discovery? Can negate intent to gain; at minimum, softens the case.

11) Practical checklists

For employers (before filing)

Determine which offense fits using the possession test.
Nail down amount and dates; prepare a clean audit schedule.
Gather entrustment papers and SOPs proving your juridical vs. material possession theory.
Send a clear written demand; preserve proof of receipt.
Prepare witness affidavits: auditor, immediate supervisor, HR, and any witness to entrustment or cash counts.

For employees (to avoid criminal exposure)

Never leave without liquidation and formal turnover (cash, devices, receipts).
If funds cannot be remitted immediately, document the reason and agree on a dated plan in writing.
Keep personal and company funds separate; never “temporarily borrow” company cash.
Photograph and copy deposits or hand-over receipts; email them to your official account for a timestamped trail.

12) FAQs

Q: Is failure to return money automatically a crime? A: No. The prosecution must still prove misappropriation/intent to gain, the entrustment nature, and prejudice/value. But unexplained non-remittance after demand is strong circumstantial evidence.

Q: If I already paid it back, is the case over? A: Restitution does not extinguish criminal liability already consummated, though it can end civil liability and may positively influence how the case is handled.

Q: Can the company keep my back pay because of shortages? A: Employers can offset demonstrably owed amounts following lawful procedures, but they should still observe labor due process and settlement documentation.

Q: Where do we file? A: Prosecutor’s Office (city/province) with territorial link to any element (receipt, entrustment, agreed place of remittance, or where misappropriation occurred).

13) Short decision map

Was money/property entrusted to the employee with a duty to deliver/return?
- Yes → Likely Estafa 315(1)(b).
- No → Go to (2).
Did the employee only have physical custody while the employer retained juridical possession?
- Yes → Likely Qualified Theft (grave abuse of confidence).
- No/unclear → Re-examine policies/receipts; look for public-fund angle (Malversation) or falsification.

14) Bottom line

If an employee leaves a job with company sales cash, Philippine criminal law typically treats the conduct as Qualified Theft or Estafa by misappropriation, depending on how the cash was held. The nature of possession, proof of entrustment, paper trail of collections and remittances, and clear computation of shortages decide the charge, penalty, and forum. Both sides should act quickly to preserve documents, send/answer demands, and seek counsel—because, in these cases, the paperwork is the case.