G.R. No. 205144 - Balerta vs. People

The case involves Margie Balerta, a cashier of Balasan Associated Barangays Multi-Purpose Cooperative (BABMPC), who was charged with estafa for allegedly misappropriating funds.
The petition for review on certiorari challenges the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) upholding a prior decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in criminal case no. 99-1103.
The RTC convicted Balerta of estafa by misappropriation and imposed a penalty ranging from prision correccional to reclusion temporal along with the accessory penalty of paying the amount allegedly misappropriated (Php185,584.06).
The CA, while modifying the penalty, affirmed the RTC’s decision before the case was taken up by the Supreme Court.

The criminal complaint, based on an Information dated October 27, 1999, alleged that during May-June 1999 in the Municipality of Balasan, Iloilo, Balerta, then cashier for BABMPC, was responsible for collecting, depositing, and accounting for funds.
It was charged that instead of properly remitting and accounting for the collections, she misappropriated the total collection amounting to Php185,584.06 for her personal use.
The complaint also stated that despite repeated demands, Balerta failed to account for the funds or return the money, causing damage to the cooperative.

During arraignment, the petitioner pleaded not guilty. Subsequent pre-trial proceedings involved stipulations by both parties regarding:

The existence and identity of BABMPC.
Her employment status and her duty as a cashier.
The operational requirement that she could not unilaterally withdraw from the cooperative’s bank account.
The basis of the criminal complaint being founded on internal audit findings rather than an independent audit.

The prosecution’s witnesses were limited primarily to BABMPC’s Manager, Napoleon Timonera, and Internal Auditor, Ruben Ambros; however, only Timonera ultimately testified in court.
Testimony from Timonera outlined:

The functions of BABMPC and the duties of a cashier.
Balerta’s control and handling of cash—involving deposits, withdrawals, and issuance of loans related to the account used by Care Philippines.
Discrepancies noted in the passbooks and internal records, including accusations of falsifying entries after misplacing the original passbook.

Balerta’s account of events, including her last reporting day and a dispute with Timonera over cash advances.
Her explanation of a minor shortage from a previous audit and her inability to produce documentary evidence to counter the allegations.
Allegations that Timonera was motivated by financial liabilities and that the internal audit was conducted in her absence without independent verification.

The RTC found Balerta guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa by misappropriation.

The decision noted her control over the cooperative’s passbook and evidence of falsified entries.
The sentence imposed ranged from a minimum of prision correccional to a maximum of reclusion temporal, with an accessory civil liability to pay the misappropriated funds.

The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision with modifications concerning the indeterminate penalties but maintained her conviction.
The evidentiary basis in both courts was primarily the testimony of Timonera, while the prosecution failed to produce formal documentary evidence such as the passbook, ledger entries, or the alleged demand letters.

The petitioner challenged the convictions, contending that as a cashier she did not have juridical possession over the funds.
Balerta argued that the element of demand as required for estafa was not established because the alleged letters were not conclusively received by her.
She further claimed that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proving her guilt beyond reasonable doubt given the lack of corroborative evidence and formal documentary submissions.

Whether a cashier, by virtue of holding and handling funds for an institution, can be said to have acquired juridical possession over the funds.
Whether mere material or physical possession (as in the case of a bank teller or cash custodian) is sufficient to establish the first element of estafa.

Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the element of demand by demonstrating that BABMPC had made a proper inquiry or demand for the return of the allegedly misappropriated funds.

Whether the evidence entirely, particularly the uncorroborated testimony of Timonera and the absence of documentary evidence, meets the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether reliance on a single witness testimony was sufficient to convict, considering the presumption of innocence and the potential existence of two plausible inferences.