G.R. No. 191039 - Arlene Homolyromorosa vs. People

Arlene Homol y Romorosa (Arlene) was hired by Dr. Jelpha Robillos y Jimenez (Dr. Robillos) as a clinic secretary.
Apart from secretarial duties, Arlene was tasked with collecting and remitting installment payments for jewelry sold by Dr. Robillos.

On March 2 and 8, 2002, Arlene received a total of ₱1,000.00 from Elena Quilangtang (Elena) as partial payment for a gold bracelet purchase.
Arlene failed to remit this money to Dr. Robillos.
Arlene resigned on March 14, 2002.
On March 15, Dr. Robillos reminded Elena of her unpaid installments, to which Elena replied that she had already paid Arlene.

Dr. Robillos filed a criminal complaint against Arlene for qualified theft.
Public Prosecutor found probable cause and charged Arlene with qualified theft under Articles 308 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), citing grave abuse of confidence in the alleged taking of ₱1,000.00.
The Information described Arlene as a secretary/collector who took the money without consent, intending to gain unlawfully.

Arlene pleaded not guilty, insisting she remitted the money.
RTC convicted Arlene of estafa (swindling) involving unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence under Article 315(1)(b) RPC.
RTC reasoned Arlene violated trust by misappropriating the payments.
Arlene was sentenced to imprisonment from three months and eleven days to one year and one day and ordered to indemnify Dr. Robillos ₱1,000.00.

Arlene argued the RTC erred by convicting her of estafa when she was charged with qualified theft.
She further contended that the Information was defective for not alleging juridical possession, an element of estafa.
The CA affirmed RTC’s conviction for estafa, holding that Arlene had possession of the money when she misappropriated it, distinguishing theft from estafa on the basis of possession.
Reconsideration was sought and denied.

Arlene claimed violation of her right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, since the Information charged qualified theft, not estafa.
She maintained that as a mere employee, she did not acquire juridical possession of the money.

Whether Arlene was properly charged and convicted of estafa despite the Information charging qualified theft.
Whether the Information sufficiently alleged the elements of estafa, including juridical possession.
Whether the proof established grave abuse of confidence to qualify the theft committed.
Whether Arlene’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation was violated.
The proper penalty and classification of the crime committed by Arlene.