G.R. No. 157526 - Kare vs. Commission on Elections

Petitioner, Grace David y Cesar, was employed by Hella Philippines, Inc. as the Traffic and Customs Coordinator starting on November 16, 1989.
Her primary responsibilities included managing shipment and delivery processes, preparing import documentation, computation and assessment of customs duties, coordination with government agencies (notably the Bureau of Customs), and executing tasks per the company’s quality systems.
The standard operating procedure for Hella’s imports required petitioner to handle shipping documents, compute taxes, fill BOC Import Entry Release Documents (IERD), and work with depositary banks (Bank of the Philippine Islands and Security Bank) for payment arrangements with the BOC.

During the period from August 24, 1999 to January 21, 2000, petitioner was charged with falsifying Land Bank commercial documents.
She allegedly made it appear that Hella Philippines, Inc. was assessed additional customs duties amounting to ₱855,995.00 (more or less) so that money could be released for payment of these duties.
In truth, no such additional customs duties had been imposed by the Bureau of Customs; the funds were misappropriated for petitioner’s own personal use.
The falsified documents were BOC Form No. 38-A forms, which are normally used by authorized collecting banks as official receipts for the payment of additional or deficiency taxes and duties.

Hella discovered discrepancies in the petitioner’s liquidation reports, noting that she had misrepresented the amounts on the BOC Form No. 38-A.
On March 24, 2000, Hella sent a letter to Land Bank requesting verification of the authenticity of the official receipt details (date, amount, series number, and teller information) on several BOC Form No. 38-A.
The reply from the Land Bank Manager highlighted multiple anomalies:

The serial numbers on the BOC official receipts did not match those issued to the Land Bank branch.
The additional duties system at BOC would reject the receipt numbers.
Discrepancies were noted in the teller’s name and number.
The rubber stamp used on the documents differed from the Land Bank’s usual stamp.
The fonts used in the computer printed copies did not match those in the Land Bank file copies.

Hella conducted an investigation and summoned petitioner to explain her actions. Petitioner failed to reasonably justify her departures from standard procedures.

The trial court, on January 6, 2010, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents.
The judgment sentenced petitioner to an indeterminate penalty ranging from Four (4) Years and Two (2) Months of prision correccional to Twenty (20) Years of reclusion temporal.
Additionally, petitioner was ordered to pay:

A fine of ₱3,000.00.
Actual damages amounting to ₱855,995.00 (as charged in the Information) with interest.
Attorney’s fees of ₱100,000.00.
All court costs.

The Information charged her only for estafa through falsification of commercial documents for the amount of ₱855,995.00, even though the prosecution’s evidence showed a larger amount defrauded (₱2,074,326.00).

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling, holding that the evidence established that petitioner had used falsified documents to facilitate and assure the commission of estafa.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied on July 19, 2013.
The appellate record reiterated that the cumulative evidence (documentary and testimonial) substantiated her guilt, notwithstanding her insistence that she merely followed standard operating procedures.

Whether the failure of the prosecution to present a Bureau of Customs (BOC) official or representative to testify on the falsified BOC Form No. 38-A undermines the establishment of petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the absence of the liquidation reports, which were submitted by petitioner, affects the credibility and conclusiveness of the evidence against her.

Whether petitioner can be held liable for the total amount defrauded (₱2,074,326.00) as proven by the prosecution, or only for the amount specifically charged in the Information (₱855,995.00).
Whether holding petitioner liable for an amount beyond the Information violates her constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

Whether the falsified BOC forms, as used by petitioner, constitute a “necessary means” to commit estafa, thus qualifying as a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.