G.R. No. 114398 - Liwanag vs. Court of Appeals

In May–August 1988, petitioner Carmen Liwanag and one Thelma Tabligan proposed to private complainant Isidora Rosales a business venture to purchase local cigarettes (Philip Morris and Marlboro) with Rosales’s funds, resell them to retailers, give Rosales a 40% commission on profits, and return the principal if not sold.
Rosales advanced several cash amounts totalling ₱633,650.00; Liwanag and Tabligan initially submitted progress reports but then ceased communication. Rosales, suspecting misappropriation, filed an estafa complaint.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 93, Quezon City, by decision dated January 9, 1991, convicted Liwanag of estafa under Article 315, Revised Penal Code, imposed an indeterminate penalty of six years, eight months, and twenty-one days of prision correccional to fourteen years and eight months of prision mayor, and ordered reimbursement of ₱526,650.00.
The Court of Appeals (CA) Third Division, in a decision dated November 29, 1993, affirmed with modification—correcting the penalty to six years, eight months, and twenty-one days of prision mayor (minimum) to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal (maximum); the motion for reconsideration was denied on March 16, 1994.
Liwanag then brought a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, assigning as errors:

That the contract was either a simple loan or a partnership/joint venture, making the non-return of funds a civil matter and not criminal;
That the CA erred in not acquitting her based on reasonable doubt (the “equipoise rule”).

Whether the transaction between petitioner and Rosales was in fact a partnership or a simple loan, thereby rendering the failure to return funds purely civil and not constitutive of estafa.
Whether the doctrine of reasonable doubt (equipoise rule) should have led to petitioner’s acquittal.