Case Summary (G.R. No. 171672)
Key Dates
– Offenses committed: October–November 1993
– RTC decision: July 13, 1998
– Court of Appeals decision: August 18, 2005
– Supreme Court decision: February 2, 2015
Applicable Law
– 1987 Philippine Constitution: rights to due process, counsel, and against self-incrimination
– Revised Penal Code:
• Article 48 (penalty for complex crimes)
• Article 172 (falsification of commercial documents)
• Article 315 (estafa)
Antecedent Facts
While acting as teller, petitioner induced depositors Matuguina and Cornejo to leave their passbooks for routine transactions. Unbeknownst to them, she forged their signatures on withdrawal slips and affixed her own initials to attest verification. She thereby withdrew ₱65,000 from Matuguina’s account in three tranches and ₱2,000 from Cornejo’s. Discovery ensued when the branch manager, Cynthia Zialcita, detected irregular withdrawals and tasked assistant manager Misa to confirm with the depositors. Confronted with discrepancies, petitioner confessed during an internal bank investigation and provided written statements and a diary listing other accounts she had victimized. She was subsequently dismissed; the bank reimbursed Matuguina ₱65,000, and Cornejo received direct restitution from petitioner.
RTC’s Judgment
The Pasay RTC found petitioner guilty of four counts of estafa through falsification of a commercial document. It imposed the following indeterminate sentences and restitution orders:
- ₱20,000 count – 2 years, 11 months, 10 days (prisión correccional minimum) to 6 years, 8 months, 20 days (prisión mayor maximum) plus ₱20,000 restitution.
- ₱2,000 count – 3 months (arresto mayor minimum) to 1 year, 8 months (prisión correccional maximum) plus ₱2,000 restitution.
- ₱10,000 count – 4 months, 20 days (arresto mayor minimum) to 2 years, 11 months, 10 days (prisión correccional maximum) plus ₱10,000 restitution.
- ₱35,000 count – 2 years, 11 months, 10 days (prisión correccional minimum) to 8 years (prisión mayor maximum) plus ₱35,000 restitution.
Court of Appeals’ Decision
The CA affirmed the RTC decision, modifying only the restitution in the ₱2,000 count by deleting the ₱2,000 award on the ground that petitioner had already paid Cornejo.
Constitutional Rights Claims
Petitioner argued on appeal that her conviction should be overturned because:
- Evidence was obtained in violation of her right against self-incrimination.
- Her rights to due process and to counsel were infringed.
Supreme Court Ruling on Self-Incrimination and Counsel
The Supreme Court applied the 1987 Constitution. It held that the rights against self-incrimination and to counsel arise only in custodial investigations conducted by law-enforcement authorities (Miranda doctrine). Petitioner’s statements were made voluntarily during an internal, non-coercive bank audit. She was neither under police custody nor deprived of freedom. Hence, constitutional safeguards did not apply, and the evidence obtained was admissible.
Establishment of Guilt and Complex Crime Nature
The Court found petitioner’s guilt for four counts of complex crime (estafa as the consummated crime and falsification of a commercial document as the necessary means). Estafa defrauded both the bank and the depositors, while the forged withdrawal slips constituted falsification under Article 172, Revised Penal Code.
Penalty Clarification under Article 48 RPC
Article 48 mandates that in a complex crime the penalty for the most serious offense must be imposed in its maximum period. Comparison of penalties:
– Falsification of commercial documents: prisión correccional (medium to maximum: 2 years, 4 months, 1 day to 6 years) plus fine ₱5,000.
– Estafa: ranges depe
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 171672)
Antecedents and Factual Background
- Petitioner Marieta De Castro was a bank teller at BPI Family Savings Bank, Malibay branch, Pasay City.
- In October–November 1993, she collected passbooks from depositors Amparo Matuguina and Milagrosa Cornejo for routine transactions.
- Without their knowledge, she forged their signatures on withdrawal slips, drew a total of ₱65,000.00 from Matuguina’s account and ₱2,000.00 from Cornejo’s account.
- Her initials on the slips indicated she had “verified” the signatures, causing fellow tellers to process and release the funds.
- Irregularities were discovered by branch manager Cynthia Zialcita, who instructed an assistant manager to confirm with the depositors.
- Confronted by Matuguina and Cornejo, De Castro first denied wrongdoing, then admitted guilt, producing multiple written confessions and a diary listing victim accounts.
- The bank refunded Matuguina’s loss and Cornejo was reimbursed directly by the petitioner; De Castro’s employment was terminated.
Trial Court Decision
- RTC Pasay City (July 13, 1998) found De Castro guilty of four counts of estafa through falsification of a commercial document.
- Criminal Case No. 94-5524 (₱20,000): Indeterminate sentence of 2 years, 11 months, 10 days of prisión correccional (min.) to 6 years, 8 months, 20 days of prisión mayor (max.); restitution of ₱20,000.
- Criminal Case No. 94-5525 (₱2,000): Indeterminate sentence of 3 months of arresto mayor (min.) to 1 year, 8 months of prisión correccional (max.); restitution of ₱2,000.
- Criminal Case No. 94-5526 (₱10,000): Indeterminate sentence of 4 months, 20 days of arresto mayor (min.) to 2 years, 11 months, 10 days of prisión correccional (max.); restitution of ₱10,000.
- Criminal Case No. 94-5527 (₱35,000): Indeterminate sentence of 2 years, 11 months, 10 days of prisión correccional (min.) to 8 years of prisión mayor (max.); restitution of ₱35,000.
- De Castro was ordered to pay costs of suit.
Court of Appeals Decision
- CA (August 18, 2005) affirmed the RTC judgment in all respects exc