G.R. No. 268891 - Noveras vs. Commission on Elections

On February 27, 2012, petitioner Juvy Desmoparan, a.k.a. “Masyador,” applied for a P105,000 salary loan at Cebu CFI Community Cooperative–Dumaguete Branch, misrepresenting himself as “Rodulfo M. Cordura,” an employee of the City Engineer’s Office.
To support the application, he submitted multiple documents bearing Cordura’s name but Desmoparan’s photo and signature, namely:

Using the falsified documents and a forged I.D. bearing Cordura’s name, Desmoparan obtained cash advances of P20,000 on March 2, P10,000 on March 9, and P10,000 on March 10, 2012, signing Cordura’s name on all vouchers.

On March 16, 2012, the real Rodulfo Cordura learned of the loan application when he received a billing statement; he denied applying for any loan or joining CFI and requested withholding of the remaining P69,000 check.
Branch manager Arden Sinco and staff apprehended Efrain Baena Mercado using another alias for a similar scheme; Mercado implicated Desmoparan as the recruiter and described seeing numerous forged CFI documents and signature imitations.

Desmoparan was charged with estafa through falsification of commercial documents, arraigned, and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented five witnesses; the petitioner offered no testimonial evidence.
On November 6, 2015, the RTC of Negros Oriental convicted him of estafa through falsification of commercial documents, sentencing him to an indeterminate term of 4 years and 2 months to 9 years of imprisonment and ordering him to pay P40,000 with 6% interest from filing.
On March 14, 2017, the Court of Appeals denied his appeal but modified the indeterminate penalty to 4 years of prision correccional as minimum to 7 years, 8 months and 21 days of prision mayor as maximum, and upheld P40,000 plus 6% interest.
The CA denied his motion for reconsideration on July 20, 2017. Desmoparan filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, contending failure of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting petitioner despite the alleged failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.