(For general information only; not legal advice.)

1) The core idea: “qualified theft” has no separate peso thresholds

Under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), qualified theft is not defined by a special amount. It is still theft (Article 308), but committed under specific qualifying circumstances listed in Article 310.

What the amount does control is the base penalty for simple theft under Article 309. Article 310 then commands that the penalty be increased by two (2) degrees.

So, the “threshold amounts for qualified theft” are really the value brackets in Article 309—because those brackets determine the starting penalty that gets bumped up by two degrees.

2) Legal basis and elements (Philippine context)

A. Theft (Article 308) – essential elements

A person commits theft when they:

Take personal property
That belongs to another
Without consent
With intent to gain (animus lucrandi)
Without violence against or intimidation of persons, and without force upon things (those fall under robbery)

B. Qualified theft (Article 310) – what “qualifies” the theft

Theft becomes qualified if it is committed under any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 310, commonly including:

By a domestic servant, or
With grave abuse of confidence, or
If the property stolen involves certain categories historically listed in Article 310 (e.g., motor vehicle, mail matter, large cattle, coconuts from a plantation, fish from a fishpond/fishery), or
If committed on occasion of calamity or similar public misfortune (e.g., fire, earthquake, typhoon) or civil disturbance / vehicular accident scenarios contemplated by the article.

Important practical point (especially workplace cases): Most employee-vs-employer cases are charged as qualified theft under “grave abuse of confidence.” Not every theft by an employee is automatically qualified; what matters is whether the employee’s role involved trust and confidence that was abused (e.g., cash handling, inventory control, access to funds or storerooms).

3) The “threshold amounts” (Article 309 value brackets that drive the penalty)

A. How “value” is determined

For penalty purposes, “value” is generally anchored on the fair/market value at the time and place of taking, proven by evidence such as receipts, price lists, appraisals, testimony, inventory records, or other competent proof.

Aggregation rule (common in practice):

If multiple items are taken in one continuous taking, courts commonly treat it as one theft and use the aggregate value.
Separate takings on different dates may be treated as separate counts, unless prosecuted/treated as a continuing offense based on the facts.

B. Value brackets under Article 309 (as amended by modern adjustments)

A commonly applied set of brackets used in practice (post-amendment) is:

Value of property taken	Base penalty for simple theft (Art. 309)
₱500 or below	Arresto menor (or fine, depending on how the provision is applied in the case)
Over ₱500 up to ₱5,000	Arresto mayor to prision correccional (lower range)
Over ₱5,000 up to ₱20,000	Prision correccional (medium to maximum range)
Over ₱20,000 up to ₱600,000	Prision mayor (minimum to medium range)
Over ₱600,000 up to ₱1,200,000	Prision mayor (maximum) to reclusion temporal (minimum)
Over ₱1,200,000 up to ₱2,200,000	Reclusion temporal (minimum to medium range)
Over ₱2,200,000	Reclusion temporal (medium to maximum range)

These are the threshold amounts that matter because Article 310 uses the Article 309 penalty as the reference point and then raises it.

4) Translating thresholds into qualified theft exposure (the “two degrees higher” rule)

A. The statutory rule

Article 310 provides that qualified theft is punished by the penalty two degrees higher than those in Article 309.

B. What “two degrees higher” means in plain terms

Under the RPC’s graduated penalty scale (simplified):

Arresto menor → Arresto mayor → Prision correccional → Prision mayor → Reclusion temporal → Reclusion perpetua → Death (Death is no longer imposed; if the computation reaches “death,” it is effectively reduced to reclusion perpetua under current law, with important consequences discussed below.)

C. Practical consequence: the “big jump” problem in qualified theft

Because the increase is by degree, not by years, a relatively modest change in the base penalty can cause a large jump once you add two degrees. This is why qualified theft can be far more severe than simple theft at the same amount.

D. The reclusion perpetua “danger zone”

Once the base theft penalty reaches reclusion temporal (or a range that already includes reclusion temporal), adding two degrees can land the accused in a penalty that reaches death, which is now reclusion perpetua.

That matters because:

Cases punishable by reclusion perpetua are not bailable as a matter of right (bail becomes discretionary, dependent on whether evidence of guilt is strong).
Indeterminate Sentence Law generally does not apply to reclusion perpetua.
Where reclusion perpetua is imposed in place of death, parole restrictions can apply under current law.

5) Special-law overlaps that can change the analysis

Certain items listed in Article 310 have modern special laws that may take precedence depending on the facts:

Motor vehicle taking may fall under anti-carnapping rules rather than being prosecuted purely as qualified theft, depending on the statutory definition and charging practice.
Large cattle cases may intersect with specialized cattle-rustling legislation.

In such overlaps, the special law typically controls if the facts fit it, and penalty structures may differ from Article 309/310.

6) Why many “employee theft” cases are charged as qualified theft (and not estafa)

A recurring confusion is whether a workplace misappropriation is qualified theft or estafa.

A useful distinction in Philippine criminal law is:

Qualified theft is typical when the employee had only physical/material custody (access to cash drawer, inventory, equipment) but not juridical possession.
Estafa is typical when the offender had juridical possession (possession by virtue of a legal relationship like agency/administration where the property is entrusted in a way that gives lawful possession beyond mere custody).

The classification affects not only charging, but also defenses, evidence, and sometimes penalty computation.

7) Litigation consequences tied to thresholds

A. Court jurisdiction (practical)

As penalties increase with value—and jump further with qualification—cases tend to fall into higher trial court jurisdiction. Even lower-value qualified theft can move into regional trial court territory because the penalty is elevated by two degrees.

B. Bail

If the imposable range reaches reclusion perpetua, bail is not automatic.
If below that, bail is generally a matter of right (subject to usual rules).

C. Prescription (statute of limitations)

Prescription depends on the penalty attached to the offense. Since qualification increases penalty, it can also affect the prescriptive period.

D. Civil liability is separate from the criminal penalty

Regardless of imprisonment, conviction generally carries civil liability:

Restitution (return of the item or its value),
Reparation and indemnification for damages proven.

8) Common misconceptions

“Qualified theft is qualified because the amount is large.” Wrong. It is qualified because of the circumstance (e.g., grave abuse of confidence). The amount affects how severe the penalty is, not whether it is qualified.
“Any theft by an employee is qualified theft.” Not automatically. The prosecution must establish grave abuse of confidence tied to the job’s trust relationship.
“If the court says ‘death’ in computation, the accused gets death.” Death is not imposed; the endpoint becomes reclusion perpetua under the current framework, with related parole consequences.

9) Bottom line

The “threshold amounts” for qualified theft are the Article 309 value brackets, because Article 310 does not introduce new peso cutoffs—it raises the Article 309 penalty by two degrees. The most critical thresholds are those where the base theft penalty escalates into prision mayor and especially reclusion temporal, because the two-degree increase can push qualified theft into the territory of reclusion perpetua, affecting bail, sentencing framework, and overall exposure.