Case Digest (G.R. No. L-23893)
Facts:
In Garry V. Inacay, petitioner Garry V. Inacay was a sales agent of Mega Star Commercial (MSC), tasked with soliciting orders, collecting payments, and issuing receipts. On an unspecified date, he received a check for ₱53,170.00 from Gamboa Lumber and Hardware (GLH) and allegedly failed to remit the proceeds to MSC proprietor Fernando Tan. Tan filed a criminal complaint for estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code with the Quezon City Prosecutor, leading to an Information before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 80. During arraignment, Inacay pleaded not guilty. He was represented by Eulogia B. Manila, who posed as a licensed attorney. Inacay first testified that he turned over the funds to MSC’s accounting officer, then later claimed he had been held up by robbers who stole GLH checks. On February 21, 2013, the RTC convicted him of estafa, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of one (1) year, eight (8) months, and twenty-one (21) days oCase Digest (G.R. No. L-23893)
Facts:
- Background and Employment
- Garry V. Inacay was engaged as a sales agent of Mega Star Commercial (MSC), tasked to solicit orders, collect payments and issue receipts.
- Inacay collected from Gamboa Lumber and Hardware a check payment amounting to ₱53,170.00, which MSC proprietor Fernando Tan demanded he remit.
- Upon Inacay’s failure to remit, Tan filed a criminal complaint for estafa with the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office, leading to an Information under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code before RTC-Branch 80.
- Trial Proceedings in the RTC
- Inacay, represented by Eulogia B. Manila—who held herself out as a lawyer—pleaded not guilty but admitted receipt of the check, claiming remittance to MSC’s accounting officer; he also executed an affidavit alleging robbery of checks.
- On February 21, 2013, the RTC convicted Inacay of estafa beyond reasonable doubt, imposed an indeterminate penalty of 1 year, 8 months & 21 days to 9 years, 8 months & 21 days, and ordered restitution of ₱53,170.00.
- Appellate Proceedings and Petition
- Inacay appealed to the Court of Appeals, still represented by Manila; on March 15, 2016, the CA affirmed the RTC’s judgment in toto.
- After the adverse CA decision, Inacay discovered via an Office of the Bar Confidant certification that Manila was not a member of the Bar.
- He then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, alleging denial of due process and lack of proof he misappropriated the check proceeds.
Issues:
- Whether Inacay’s guilt of estafa was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether Inacay was denied due process by being represented throughout by a non-lawyer counsel.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)