G.R. No. 211917 - Gamaro vs. People

On March 1, 2005, Norma C. Gamaro and Josephine G. Umali (petitioners) were charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a), of the Revised Penal Code before Branch 32 of the RTC of San Pablo City.
The Information alleged that Norma Gamaro, pretending knowledge in jewelry business, enticed private complainant Joan Fructoza E. Fineza to enter into a business venture involving the purchase and delivery of jewelry amounting to ₱2,292,519.00. Gamaro was to manage the business and remit proceeds, but instead, she managed it as her own, pawned the jewelry at Lhuillier Pawnshop where Umali worked, and the checks issued in guarantee were dishonored.
Josephine Umali was implicated as conspiring with Norma Gamaro.

Upon arraignment on August 4, 2005, both petitioners pleaded not guilty; Rowena C. Gamaro, a co-accused, remained at large.
Private complainant Fineza testified that she engaged in a jewelry business with Norma Gamaro and her daughters, including Umali and Rowena Gamaro. Jewelry purchased was pawned, sold to SSS coworkers, and proceeds were to be split 50/50 between Fineza and the Gamaro family.
Upon winding up the business, jewelry was found pawned contrary to agreement, and checks issued were dishonored due to insufficient funds or account closure. Norma Gamaro admitted to lack of funds and pawning the jewelry. Fineza redeemed the pawned jewelry with her own money.
Demand letter sent to Norma Gamaro, Umali, and Rowena Gamaro on February 16, 2004, asking the return of ₱2,292,519.00 was ignored.
Norma Gamaro and Umali denied involvement in the business, with Umali asserting ignorance of the source of the pledged jewelry.

On July 25, 2011, the RTC found Norma Gamaro guilty of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b), of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing her to an indeterminate prison term of 4 years and 2 months up to 20 years.
Josephine Umali was exonerated from criminal liability.
The court ordered Norma and Josephine to pay the private complainant collectively: ₱1,259,841.46 plus interest, moral damages (₱50,000), exemplary damages (₱25,000), attorney’s fees (₱50,000), and costs.
Warrant issued for Rowena Gamaro’s arrest and a hold departure order by the Bureau of Immigration.

The CA, in a Decision dated November 25, 2013, affirmed the RTC decision.
Motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners was denied on February 21, 2014.

Petitioners raised multiple errors including improper charging under a different paragraph of the Revised Penal Code, reliance on administrative case findings, testimony of prosecution witness Atty. Baldeo despite alleged conflict of interest, and conflicting evidence on receipt of jewelry by Norma Gamaro.

Whether conviction for Estafa under a different paragraph from that charged in the Information is permissible.
Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by relying on findings in administrative proceedings involving Norma Gamaro.
Whether the testimony of prosecution witness Atty. Baldeo violated the rule on privileged communication between attorney and client.
Whether the RTC erred in finding that Norma Gamaro received the subject jewelry despite alleged contradictory and incompetent evidence.
Whether Josephine Umali should be held civilly liable despite acquittal in criminal liability.