Case Summary (G.R. No. 210318)
Petitioner
Janice Reside y Tan
Respondent
People of the Philippines
Key Dates
• May 8, 2006 – Filing of Information in RTC Branch 201, Las Piñas City
• April 8, 2011 – RTC Decision convicting petitioner of estafa
• June 28, 2013 – CA Decision affirming with modification
• November 26, 2013 – CA Resolution denying reconsideration
• July 28, 2020 – Supreme Court Decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• Revised Penal Code (RPC) Articles 308 (Theft), 310 (Qualified Theft), 315(1)(b) (Estafa by Misappropriation)
• Indeterminate Sentence Law
• Republic Act No. 10951 (amending Article 309, penalties)
• Rules of Court, Rule 45; Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 120, Sections 4–5
Facts
From 2001 to 2005, petitioner received P1,721,010.82 in tuition and other school fees. She issued temporary receipts in contravention of policy, failed to remit collections to TGWSI, and avoided meetings with De Dios. After barangay conciliation, petitioner executed a promissory note to pay within three months but failed to comply, prompting the criminal complaint.
Procedural History
The RTC found petitioner guilty of estafa under Article 315(1)(b), sentencing her to an indeterminate term of 8 years (prision mayor, medium) to 17 years 4 months 1 day (reclusion temporal) and ordered indemnity of P1,721,010.82 plus 10% attorney’s fees. On appeal, the CA reduced the indemnity to P134,462.90, adjusted the penalty to 4 years 2 months (prision correccional) to 17 years 4 months 1 day (reclusion temporal), and maintained 10% attorney’s fees. Reconsideration was denied.
Issue
Whether petitioner’s failure to remit entrusted funds constitutes estafa under Article 315(1)(b) or, instead, qualified theft under Articles 308 and 310 of the RPC.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court held that petitioner cannot be guilty of estafa because she had only material possession—not juridical possession—of the funds. The Court accordingly found her guilty of qualified theft, a crime necessarily included in the charge, and modified the penalty.
Estafa vs. Qualified Theft Analysis
- Estafa by misappropriation (Article 315(1)(b)) requires both material and juridical possession of the property.
- As an employee-custodian, petitioner acquired only physical custody; juridical possession remained with TGWSI.
- Prior jurisprudence (Guzman v. CA; Chua-Burce; Roque v. People; Benabaye) consistently treats funds held by employees as material possession, rendering misappropriation theft, not estafa.
Elements of Qualified Theft
- Taking of personal property belonging to another
- Without owner’s consent
- With intent to gain (presumed from unlawful taking)
- Without violence or intimidation
- Committed with grave abuse of confidence (Article 310 RPC)
- Accomplished under circumstances enumerated in Article 310
All elements were satisfied: petitioner took TGWSI’s funds without consent, abused her trust as principal, intended personal gain, used no force, and misappropriated entrusted collections.
Penalty Determination
- Under Article 309 (as amended by RA 10951), theft of P134,462.90 is punishable by prision correc
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 210318)
Procedural History
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assails the June 28, 2013 Decision and November 26, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 34634
- CA had affirmed with modification the April 8, 2011 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City, Branch 201 in Criminal Case No. 06-0052
- RTC originally convicted petitioner for estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC)
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied, prompting the present Supreme Court petition
Factual Background
- From 2001 to 2005, petitioner served as Pre-School and Grade School Principal of Treasury of the Golden Word School, Inc. (TGWSI)
- She was authorized by TGWSI President Carmelita C. De Dios to collect tuition and other school payments, issue official receipts, and remit collections to the school
- TGWSI Treasurer Marie Gil Padilla observed petitioner’s absence in 2005 and non-remittance of tuition fees
- Inquiry revealed issuance of temporary receipts contrary to school policy
- Petitioner admitted the allegations at a barangay conference and signed a promissory note promising payment within three months
- Upon failure to pay and despite demands, TGWSI filed a criminal complaint for estafa
Charge and Information
- Information alleged that petitioner, with unfaithful abuse of confidence, misappropriated ₱1,721,010.82 entrusted to her and refused to return it despite repeated demands
- Charged under paragraph 1(b), Article 315 of the RPC (“estafa by misappropriation or conversion of money received in trust”)
Petitioner’s Plea and Defense
- Pleaded “not guilty” at arraignment on September 1, 2006
- Admitted receipt of collections and issuance of receipts but denied misappropriation
- Claimed that De Dios found no discrepancies upon examining receipts before filing the case
- Contended promissory note was signed under duress
RTC Decision (April 8, 2011)
- Found all receipts and statements of account bore petitioner’s signature, evidencing receipt of funds
- Established misappropriation from discrepancy between official receipts and remittance vouchers
- Noted mailing of demand letter on November 3, 2005 as admitted by petitioner
- Convicted petition