G.R. No. 210318 - Reside y Tan vs. People

Petitioner: Janice Reside y Tan (school pre-school and grade school principal). Respondent: People of the Philippines; private complainant: Treasury of the Golden Word School, Inc. (TGWSI) represented by its President, Carmelita C. De Dios.
Information (filed May 8, 2006): accused of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly receiving collections (tuition and other school payments) in the total amount of P1,721,010.82 from 2001–2005, misappropriating/misapplying/converting same to her own use, and failing to remit to the school despite repeated demands.

Petitioner was entrusted by De Dios to collect tuition fees, issue official receipts, and remit collections to TGWSI. Treasurer Marie Gil Padilla noticed petitioner's absence from work in 2005, prompting De Dios to review school books and discover non-remittance of some tuition receipts. Investigation revealed issuance of temporary receipts contrary to school policy.
At the barangay, petitioner allegedly admitted the truth of De Dios’ allegations. Parties signed a promissory note in which petitioner undertook to pay De Dios within three months. Petitioner failed to pay at maturity; despite demand, De Dios filed criminal complaint. A demand letter was allegedly mailed on November 3, 2005.

Claimed she was authorized (together with Padilla) to acknowledge and receive payments and issue necessary receipts; denied failure to remit and claimed De Dios had examined receipts and found no discrepancy prior to filing of the case.
Asserted promissory note was signed under duress.

RTC decision (Apr 8, 2011): Found petitioner GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of estafa under Art. 315(1)(b). RTC relied on signatures on statements of account, official and temporary receipts as proof of receipt; discrepancy between receipts issued and remittance voucher slips as proof of misappropriation; and admitted demand. Sentenced petitioner to indeterminate penalty (prision mayor in medium period as minimum to reclusion temporal as maximum) and ordered indemnity of P1,721,010.82 plus 10% attorney’s fees.

Court of Appeals (CA) Decision (June 28, 2013): Affirmed guilt but materially reduced proven misremittance to P134,462.90 based on documentary proof. Modified penalty to indeterminate term (minimum prision correccional 4 years 2 months; maximum reclusion temporal 17 years 4 months 1 day). Ordered indemnity of P134,462.90 plus 10% attorney’s fees.
CA Resolution (Nov 26, 2013): Denied reconsideration.
Petition to the Supreme Court under Rule 45: Petitioner appealed CA judgment.

Whether the elements of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) RPC were proven beyond reasonable doubt, specifically whether petitioner had juridical possession of the funds (first element).
If estafa is not established, whether the evidence nevertheless supports conviction for another offense necessarily included in the information, namely qualified theft.

Proper penalty to be imposed for the offense proved, taking into account Republic Act No. 10951 (adjustment of values) and applicable sentencing rules (Art. 309, Art. 310, Art. 65, Indeterminate Sentence Law).
Proper civil indemnity or damages and interest; whether attorney’s fees as earlier ordered should stand.