From the library

Legal Insights

Plain-language guides and case briefs on Philippine law — researched from the firm's law library of 184,000+ statutes, Supreme Court decisions, and agency issuances, and written so non-lawyers can understand and act on them.

Have your own question? Ask ASG Legal AI now.

Get a cited, plain-language answer from 184,000+ statutes and decisions — free, no sign-up.

Ask a question

Showing 1–7 of 7 articles for “grave abuse of confidence”

Qualified Theft vs. Simple Theft: When Does Grave Abuse of Confidence Apply?

The Supreme Court clarifies when employee theft becomes qualified theft, requiring proof of special trust beyond ordinary employer-employee relations.

Breach of Trust: Defining the Boundaries of Qualified Theft in Philippine Law

The Supreme Court clarifies the elements of qualified theft and the proper penalty, emphasizing grave abuse of confidence in a cashier's pilferage case.

Breach of Trust: Defining Qualified Theft Through Grave Abuse of Confidence in Employment

A sales clerk who failed to remit collections was convicted of qualified theft, not estafa. The Supreme Court explains the key difference.

Distinguishing Simple Theft From Qualified Theft: The Critical Role of Grave Abuse of Confidence

The Supreme Court clarifies when theft is qualified by grave abuse of confidence, and when it remains simple theft.

Breach of Trust Defining Qualified Theft in Philippine Law

The Supreme Court clarifies the elements of qualified theft, emphasizing grave abuse of confidence as the distinguishing factor in criminal cases.

Breach of Trust: Understanding Qualified Theft in the Philippines

Learn how the Supreme Court defines qualified theft, including the role of grave abuse of confidence, through a real case example.

Breach of Trust: Defining Grave Abuse of Confidence in Qualified Theft Cases

SC clarifies that bank employees holding deposited funds act with grave abuse of confidence, making them liable for qualified theft.