Case Digest (G.R. No. 224316)
Facts:
Elizabeth Horca v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 224316, November 10, 2021, Supreme Court Second Division, Hernando, J., writing for the Court. The decision was concurred in by Justices Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, and Gaerlan; Senior Associate Justice Perlas‑Bernabe took no part; two additional members were designated per raffle.Petitioner Elizabeth Horca (Horca) was charged by Information on January 21, 2004 with Theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly receiving two BPI checks totaling P1,005,626.50 from the Sisters of Providence (represented by Sister Linda Jo Reynolds) to purchase 19 Swiss Air round‑trip tickets to Rome, delivering only four tickets and failing to return or account for the rest of the money. Horca pleaded not guilty at arraignment on August 3, 2004. Trial ensued after pretrial.
At trial, Sister Reynolds testified that she gave two checks (P502,813.25 each) to Horca for the tickets, received an official receipt and four tickets (later unusable), and that subsequent demand letters to Horca for refund were largely unanswered except for a P90,000 partial repayment. Horca testified she acted as a consultant for Expert Travel and Tours, had authority to collect the checks and obtain the tickets on the agency’s behalf, presented fax copies of the tickets to the sisters, and that Swiss Air later cancelled flights because of bankruptcy/strike and refunded Expert Travel — not Horca — whom she claimed did not reimburse her; she returned P90,000 voluntarily and attempted to recover funds from the agency.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Manila convicted Horca of Theft in a May 7, 2012 Decision, finding all elements of theft proven and sentencing her to the maximum term under Article 309(1) plus an order to reimburse P915,626.50 with 12% interest. The RTC denied her motion for reconsideration.
The Court of Appeals, in a November 13, 2015 Decision (CA‑G.R. CR No. 36346), affirmed the RTC’s conviction but reduced the interest to 6% per annum from finality. The CA denied Horca’s motion for reconsideration (Feb. 18, 2016), rejecting her new contention that the proper charge was estafa because it had been raised for the first time on appeal.
Horca filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of C...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the petition should be dismissed for procedural defects (a defective verification and presenting factual issues beyond Rule 45 review)?
- Whether petitioner Elizabeth Horca is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Theft under Article 308 of the Re...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)