G.R. No. 159450 - People vs. Garcia Cristobal

Olivia Aleth Garcia Cristobal, a teller at Prudential Bank, Angeles Main Branch, was charged with qualified theft for allegedly unlawfully taking US$10,000.00 from the bank on or about January 2, 1996.
The information alleged grave abuse of trust and confidence as a teller entrusted with cash and other accountabilities.

The prosecution presented four witnesses: bank manager Edgardo Panlilio, bank auditor Virgilio Frias, bank cashier Noel Cunanan, and account holder Apolinario Tayag.
Only appellant handled dollar transactions at the branch. An internal audit on January 2, 1996 revealed a US$10,000.00 shortage in appellant’s cash box.
Appellant presented a withdrawal memo dated January 2, 1996 for a US$10,000.00 withdrawal from account FX-836 belonging to Apolinario Tayag and co-signatory Adoracion Tayag.
The withdrawal memo lacked signatures of two bank officers as required.
The account had a "hold jacket" instructing no withdrawal below US$35,000.00, but the $10,000.00 withdrawal had reduced the balance to $26,077.51, violating this hold.
Signature verification showed discrepancies between the withdrawal memo and specimen signatures.
Subsequent cash counts confirmed the $10,000.00 shortage persisted, and appellant initially explained it as a withdrawal after cut-off time on December 29, 1995.
On January 4, 1996, appellant admitted in a letter to the bank president that she handed over the missing amount to a man who threatened her family, along with another shortage of P2.2 million.

The accused pleaded not guilty but filed a Demurrer to Evidence and Motion to Defer Defense Evidence after the prosecution rested.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the demurrer due to the absence of express court leave, considering the filing as a waiver of her right to present evidence.
The RTC convicted appellant of qualified theft imposing an indeterminate sentence of 10 years and 1 day to 20 years imprisonment and ordered payment of the amount stolen plus interest.

The CA affirmed the conviction on July 31, 2003, modifying the penalty to reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties of death under Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code.
The CA found the circumstantial evidence and appellant’s inconsistent explanations sufficient to convict beyond reasonable doubt.
It ruled that the information was sufficient as it approximated the date of the offense and that the waiver of right to present defense evidence was valid under the Rules of Court.
The letter to the bank president was ruled a voluntary party admission and admissible in evidence.

Whether the information was fatally defective for charging theft on or about January 2, 1996 while evidence suggested the taking occurred on a different date.

Whether the RTC correctly ruled that appellant waived her right to present evidence due to filing a demurrer to evidence without prior court leave.

Whether the extrajudicial letter by appellant to the bank president admitting to taking the money was admissible as evidence despite lack of counsel and oath.