Case Summary (G.R. No. 159450)
Context and Charge
Olivia Cristobal was charged with qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code for unlawfully taking US $10,000.00 from Prudential Bank where she was entrusted as a teller. The prosecution alleged that the accused, abusing her position and with intent to gain, stole the amount without the knowledge or consent of the bank on or about January 2, 1996.
Summary of Evidence Presented by the Prosecution
The State presented witnesses establishing that:
- Cristobal was the only teller handling dollar transactions at the bank’s Angeles City branch.
- An audit found her accountable cash balance was short by US $10,000.00 compared to bank records.
- The accused presented withdrawal memos dated January 2, 1996, which lacked required officer signatures and showed inconsistencies.
- The corresponding account ledger had a "hold jacket" restricting withdrawals below a certain balance, which the supposed withdrawal violated.
- The signatures on the withdrawal and deposit memos significantly differed from specimen signatures on file.
- The depositor Apolinario Tayag denied authorizing the withdrawal or deposits and disclaimed familiarity with the documents.
- Upon confrontation, the accused admitted in a letter to the bank president that she gave the money to an unidentified man who threatened her family, and explained she covered up by manipulating other transactions.
- The accused gave contradictory explanations regarding the timing and circumstances of the withdrawal.
Trial Court Proceedings and Waiver of Defense Evidence
Upon resting of the prosecution’s case, the accused filed a Demurrer to Evidence and a Motion to Defer Defense Evidence without securing prior leave of court as mandated under Section 15, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court. The trial court denied the demurrer and ruled that the accused had waived her right to present evidence. Accordingly, the case was submitted for judgment based solely on the prosecution’s evidence, leading to her conviction and sentence of an indeterminate prison term as minimum prision mayor to maximum reclusion temporal.
Court of Appeals Affirmation and Penalty Modification
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties under Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code, based on:
- The multiple and consistent circumstantial evidence pointing exclusively to the accused’s guilt.
- The compliance with requisites for valid circumstantial evidence: multiple circumstances proved, facts established, and combined circumstances sufficient to exclude reasonable doubt.
- The credibility issues raised by her inconsistent explanations and failure to report alleged extortion attempts.
Legal Issues on Appeal
The accused raised several contentions before the Supreme Court:
- The information was fatally defective for alleging the taking on January 2, 1996, whereas evidence showed the taking actually occurred earlier.
- The conviction was based on inadmissible extrajudicial admission and hearsay evidence.
- The evidence did not satisfy elements of qualified theft.
- The trial court showed procedural unfairness favoring the prosecution and strictness to her defense.
- The court erred in ruling she waived her right to present evidence despite a motion to defer filed with the demurrer.
Supreme Court’s Rulings
Sufficiency and Validity of the Information
The Court held the information was sufficient and valid. The revised rules require only an approximate time to be alleged unless time is a material ingredient of the offense. Theft’s date is not material; hence, alleging “on or about January 2, 1996” was adequate to inform her and prepare a defense. The four-day discrepancy with the alleged actual taking was immaterial and did not prejudice her rights.
Waiver of Right to Present Evidence
The Court affirmed the trial and appellate courts’ ruling that the accused waived her right to present evidence by filing the demurrer without prior leave of court, pursuant to Section 15, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that a motion to defer defense evidence made concurrently did not constitute a request for leave to file the demurrer. The accused and counsel’s failure to secure leave was deemed negligent and binding on the accused as the client, thus effecting a valid waiver of defense evidence. This was upheld despite previous jurisprudence requiring inquiry on voluntariness of waiver in capital offenses because factual circumstances differed.
Admissibility of the Handwritten Letter
The accused’s letter to the bank president detailing alleged extortion and money giving was ruled admissible as a voluntary admission under Section 26, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. It was not an extrajudicial confession requiring counsel’s presence or execution under oath since it was not a direct acknowledgment of guilt and was not made during custodial investigation. The constitutional safeguards under Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, relating to rights during custodial investigation, did not apply.
Evidentiary Sufficiency and Conviction Aff
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 159450)
Background and Facts
- The accused, Olivia Aleth Garcia Cristobal, was a teller at Prudential Bank, Angeles Main Branch, entrusted with cash and other bank responsibilities.
- She was charged with qualified theft for willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously taking US$10,000.00 belonging to Prudential Bank on or about January 2, 1996.
- The theft allegedly involved grave abuse of trust and confidence reposed in her by her employer.
- An internal audit revealed a shortage of US$10,000.00 in the dollar cash box she managed.
- The accused initially claimed the discrepancy arose from a transaction after cut-off time on December 29, 1995, which would be treated as a withdrawal on January 2, 1996.
- Withdrawal and deposit memos pertaining to the disputed amount lacked the signatures of two bank officers and contained fraudulent signatures.
- Subsequent investigation by the bank’s audit team showed that the alleged withdrawal violated a “hold jacket” on the account, disallowing withdrawals below $35,000.00.
- The co-account holder, Apolinario Tayag, denied knowledge or authorization of the withdrawal or deposit, and denied the signatures on the documents.
- The accused later admitted in a letter to the bank president that she had appropriated the money under threats from an unidentified man demanding money repeatedly.
- The accused pleaded not guilty and her counsel filed a Demurrer to Evidence without prior leave of court, essentially waiving her right to present defense evidence.
Procedural History
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 57, Angeles City, convicted Cristobal of qualified theft, sentencing her to an indeterminate term of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 20 years of reclusion temporal, and ordered her to pay the bank US$10,000.00 plus interest.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed her conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties of death, and ordered payment of US$10,000.00 without interest.
- The accused appealed to the Supreme Court raising several grounds questioning the sufficiency of evidence, legality of the information, admissibility of her extrajudicial letter, and denial of her right to present evidence.
Issue on Sufficiency and Validity of the Information
- The accused claimed that the information was defective for charging her with theft on January 2, 1996 when evidence showed the alleged taking did not occur on that date.
- The Supreme Court ruled that the information was sufficient as it contained the approximate date (“on or about the 2nd of January, 1996”), the nature of the offense, and essential elements as required by the Revised Rules of Court.
- Exact timing of the offense is not a material ingredient in qualified theft, allowing some leeway in the date alleged.
- December 29, 1995 and January 2, 1996 are only four days apart, thus no prejudice was caused to the accused in preparing her defense.
Waiver of the Right to Present Evidence
- After the prosecution rested, the accused filed a Demurrer to Evidence without prior court permission, effectively waiving her right to present defense evidence under Section 15, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court.
- The RTC denied the demurrer and considered the case submitted for decision on the prosecution’s evidence alone.
- The accused argue