Case Digest (G.R. No. 205144)
Facts:
Margie Balerta v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 205144, November 26, 2014, Supreme Court Third Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Margie Balerta (a former cashier of Balasan Associated Barangays Multi-Purpose Cooperative or BABMPC) sought review of the Court of Appeals decision affirming, with modification of the penalty, the Regional Trial Court of Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, Branch 66 conviction for estafa. The CA decision was dated October 31, 2012; the RTC decision was dated November 15, 2006. The petition was taken to the Court by a petition for review on certiorari.The Information (October 27, 1999) charged petitioner with misappropriating P185,584.06 entrusted to BABMPC in connection with a Care Philippines loan account; she pleaded not guilty and pre-trial stipulations acknowledged her identity, position as cashier, that she could not withdraw alone from the cooperative’s bank account, and that the complaint was based on an internal audit. The prosecution announced that BABMPC’s manager, Napoleon Timonera, and its internal auditor, Ruben Ambros, would testify and that only their affidavits would be offered as documentary evidence; at trial only Timonera testified and neither side formally offered documentary evidence.
Timonera described petitioner’s duties as a cashier handling daily remittances, deposits, withdrawals and loans under the Care Philippines account, and narrated bank passbook discrepancies and an alleged scheme involving two passbooks (an “old” passbook with falsified entries and a replacement). He testified as to demand letters sent to petitioner. The prosecution did not present Ambros, the bookkeeper Rose De Asis, the bank personnel, nor the passbooks and ledgers as formally offered exhibits.
Petitioner testified that she stopped reporting for work in June 1999 due to illness, denied sole responsibility for the shortages, asserted that Timonera had significant cash advances, claimed an independent audit was refused, and reported that drawers were opened without her presence and that P5,000 was missing. She denied the audit’s findings and pointed to motive on Timonera’s part.
The RTC convicted petitioner of estafa by misappropriation on November 15, 2006 and imposed indeterminate penalties and an order to pay P185,584.06. On appeal, the CA (Oct. 31, 2012) affirmed the conviction but modified the minimum penalty to four years and one day of prision correccional to twenty years reclusion temp...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does a cashier’s mere physical custody amount to juridical possession such that the element of receipt in trust/for administration under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code is satisfied?
- Was the element of demand established in this prosecution for estafa?
- Was the petitioner’s guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt and, relatedly, was there sufficient basis to impose...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)