G.R. No. 215545 - Dela Cruz vs. National Police Commission

Cristeta Chua-Burce (petitioner) was a cash custodian at Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (Metrobank), Calapan Branch.
She was charged with estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code and faced a separate civil action for recovery of ₱150,000.

On August 16, 1985, a physical count of the vault cash revealed a ₱150,000 shortage (₱3,850,000 counted vs. ₱4,000,000 recorded).
Four successive probes—by the branch manager, internal auditors, the bank’s Department of Internal Affairs, and the NBI—confirmed the shortage and pointed to petitioner as primarily responsible.

Metrobank filed Civil Case No. R-3733 (sum of money and damages).
An Information for estafa was filed on November 27, 1985, alleging misappropriation of ₱150,000 by abuse of confidence.

Petitioner moved to suspend the criminal case pending resolution of the civil case; the trial court granted the motion, later reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA).
During pre-trial, parties agreed (under Rule 118, Sections 2(e) & 4) to adopt evidence from the civil case for the criminal case; the agreement was signed by petitioner, her counsel, and the public prosecutor.
On March 18, 1991, the regional trial court convicted petitioner of estafa (penalty: six months arresto mayor in its maximum to eight years prision mayor in its minimum) and rendered judgment in the civil case for ₱150,000 plus interest.

Petitioner appealed both verdicts to the CA; on November 27, 1992, the CA affirmed in toto the trial court’s decisions and denied her motion for reconsideration.
She filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, raising five issues.

Is the result of polygraph examination admissible in evidence?
Can the presiding judge admit evidence previously denied by the former judge of the same court?
Does a prima facie presumption of misappropriation exist against petitioner when others had access to the cash-in-vault?
Is Rule 111, Section 2(a) of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure applicable?
Was the criminal proceeding valid when the fiscal was not actually present and did not supervise the prosecution?