Case Digest (G.R. No. 210318)
Facts:
Janice Reside y Tan v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 210318, July 28, 2020, the Supreme Court First Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Janice Reside y Tan (petitioner) was charged by the People of the Philippines with estafa under paragraph 1(b), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in Criminal Case No. 06-0052 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City, Branch 201. The Information alleged that between 2001 and 2005 petitioner, as pre-school and grade school principal of Treasury of the Golden Word School, Inc. (TGWSI), was authorized to collect tuition and other school payments but misappropriated P1,721,010.82 and failed to remit the collections to the school despite repeated demands.At arraignment on September 1, 2006 petitioner pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented evidence that petitioner collected tuition fees, issued temporary receipts contrary to TGWSI policy, ceased reporting to work in 2005, and admitted the allegations at the barangay hall; she also signed a promissory note to pay the school but failed to make payment. Petitioner contended she was authorized (together with the treasurer) to acknowledge payments and issue receipts, that De Dios examined receipts and found no discrepancy before filing the case, and that the promissory note was signed under duress.
The RTC, in an April 8, 2011 Decision, found petitioner guilty of estafa under Article 315(1)(b), relying on receipts and account signatures, a discovered discrepancy between receipts and remittance slips, and a demand letter mailed on November 3, 2005; it sentenced petitioner under the Indeterminate Sentence Law and ordered indemnification of P1,721,010.82 plus attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in a June 28, 2013 Decision affirmed with modification: it agreed on guilt but, after reexamining documentary evidence, reduced the indemnity to P134,462.90 and adjusted the penalty; the CA denied reconsideration in a November 26, 2013 Resolution.
Petitioner filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of th...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner properly convicted of estafa under paragraph 1(b), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code?
- If not, may petitioner be convicted of qualified theft as an offense necessarily included in the charge under the variance doctrine (Rule 120, Secs. 4–5)?
- What is the proper sentence and quantum of indemnity, applying the amended penalty scheme (R.A. No....(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)