G.R. No. 207249 - ZENAIDA LAYSON VDA. DE MANJARES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed by the petitioner Zenaida Layson Vda. de Manjares (Zenaida) assailing the Decision2 dated November 12, 2012 and Resolution3 dated May 20, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 33373, which affirmed the Judgment4 dated March 18, 2010 of Branch 14, Regional Trial Court of Ligao City (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 3840 convicting Zenaida for estafa, penalized under Article 315(l)(b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The FactsA Information for
estafa was filed against Zenaida, the accusatory portion of which reads:
chanroblesvirtualawlibraryThat sometime on September 12, 1996 up to and including
October 4, 1998, in the Municipality of Polangui, Province of Albay,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above named accused, having received in trust or administration from
PAULO P. BALLESTEROS JR. various appliances, furnitures, motorcycles,
and other similar products with a total value of SEVEN HUNDRED THIRTY
THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED ELEVEN PESOS and FIFTY NINE CENTAVOS
(P730,811.59), for the purpose of selling the same on consignment basis, under the express obligation of turning over and/or deposit to the bank the next banking day the proceeds of the said items, if sold, or return them, if not sold, to the said Paulo P. Ballesteros Jr., but once in
possession of the said items and far from complying with her obligation
aforesaid, the said accused, with abuse of confidence, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate, misapply and convert the said amount to her personal use and benefit and despite
repeated demands to remit the proceeds of the sale, if any, and/or
return the items, if unsold, failed, and refused and still fails and
refuses to do so, to the damage and prejudice of said Paulo P.
Ballesteros, Jr. in the sum of P730,811.59.
ALL ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.5
During the arraignment, Zenaida pleaded not guilty. The private
prosecutor then filed a manifestation, reserving the right of the
complainant Paulo P. Ballesteros, Jr. (Ballesteros) to institute a
separate civil action for damages.
6 Pre-trial and trial thereafter ensued.
The prosecution presented as witnesses the following: (1) Rafael
Roderick Pan (Pan), the auditor who audited Alson's Polangui; (2)
Rodilyn Repuyan (Repuyan), secretary and cashier at Alson's Polangui;
(3) Pablo H. Mendoza (Mendoza), (4) Rodrigo Valenciano (Valenciano), and (5) Antonio Nobles,
7 former customers of Alson's Polangui; and (6) Ballesteros, the owner of
Alson's Trading and Alson's Polangui. On the other hand, Zenaida was the only witness for the defense.
Based on the testimonies of both Zenaida and Ballesteros, the former was initially engaged in the business of buying-and-selling of appliances,
furniture, and other products. She would buy from Ballesteros' business Alson's Trading in Iriga City - around once a month. Because she had
become a regular customer, she and Ballesteros had an agreement that her store would be used to establish Alson's Polangui and that she would be its branch manager.
8 According to Ballesteros, Zenaida had the following obligations as the
branch manager: "1) receive the stocks; 2) sell and document them
properly, following the standard pricing for cash or installment; 3)
hire and terminate employees; 4) document and deposit collections in the bank the next banking day; and 5) be accountable for any shortages in
the collection."
9 Meanwhile, Ballesteros' obligation was to pay the monthly salaries of Zenaida and
the other employees. According to Zenaida, she assumed the payment of
the rent and the telephone bills, while Ballesteros shouldered the
electric bills.
10 Ballesteros claimed however that he was paying the rent for the space
but that he paid it through Zenaida as she was the one who had the lease agreement with the lessor.
11Ballesteros narrated in his testimony that he visited Alson's Polangui
one time and he did not find any cash there. He grew suspicious, so he
asked Pan to conduct a preliminary audit. The preliminary audit revealed a shortage of around P65,000.00 per month of operation. He confronted
Zenaida about this, and she allegedly promised to pay the shortages back within 15 days. Meanwhile, Ballesteros asked Pan to conduct an audit of the branch's entire operation from September 12, 1996 to October 4,
1998.
12 Based on Pan's audit, Zenaida's total accountability was allegedly P730,811.59, broken down as follows:
13chanrobleslawlibrary Undeposited Net Collection for the Day | P143,100.63 |
Net Short Deposit of Collection for the Day | 32,853.26 |
Disallowed Payment of Salesman Commission | 12,967.10 |
Unreplaced Bounced Check Used for Liquidation of Stocks | 9,963.50 |
Unreceipted/Undeposited C.O.D. Sales | 5,829.00 |
Customers with Remaining Balance but has (sic) Fully Paid | 15,526.01 |
Current Cost of Unaccounted Stocks | 466,108.25 |
Price Difference/Excess Payments for Unaccounted Stocks Confirmed to be Delivered to Customers | 4,778.00 |
Charges for Unaccounted Repossessed Unit | 13,172.84 |
Confirmed Short Remittance of C.O.D. Sales | 23,474.50 |
Price Difference/Excess Payments for Confirmed Installment Sales but are Reported as C.O.D. Sales | 61,362.00 |
TOTAL | P730,811.5914 |
"Undeposited Net Collection for the Day" refers to the total amount of
the daily net collections of Alson's Polangui which were not deposited
in the bank at all.
15 "Net
Short Deposit of Collections" represents "short deposits," meaning the
amounts deposited to the bank account were less than the total
collections for a given period.
16 Pan arrived at this by comparing the columnar logbooks - which
contained the details of the sales made in Alson's Polangui - prepared
by Repuyan, the cashier/secretary,
vis-a-vis the bank statements containing the amounts that Zenaida deposited.
17"Disallowed Payments of Salesman Commission" refers to amounts paid to
supposed agents who solicited customers of Alson's Polangui, but it was
later on discovered that either the agents were fictitious, or the
agents did not in fact receive said amounts.
18 "Unreplaced Bounced Check Used for Liquidation of Stocks" refers to the amount representing the payment of four customers who paid in cash, but instead of depositing the cash, Zenaida deposited a personal check
covering the amount which was subsequently dishonored for insufficient
funds.
19"Unreceipted/Undeposited C.O.D. Sales" refers to amounts representing
items delivered to customers, proven through delivery receipts issued to them, but which were not recorded in the columnar logbook prepared by
Repuyan.
20 "Customers with Remaining Balance but has (
sic) Fully Paid" refers to installment payments by customers which were not
recorded and also unremitted to Ballesteros' bank account.
21 "Current Cost of Unaccounted Stocks" refers to the value of stocks
delivered to Alson's Polangui which can no longer be found or accounted
for during the audit.
22 "Unaccounted Stocks Delivered to Customers" refers to the value of
stocks delivered to customers which were not reported as sales.
23 "Charges for Unaccounted Repossessed Units" refers to the value of
stocks repossessed by Alson's Polangui for failure of the buyer to pay
the installment payments, which stocks were unaccounted for during the
audit.
24"Short Remittances for C.O.D. Sales" refers to the amounts representing
the difference between the amount in the delivery receipts given to the
customers, and the amount reflected in the office copy of such receipts. The office copies of the receipts, which were the bases of the
remittances to Ballesteros' bank account, reflected smaller amounts
compared to the ones given to the customers.
25 Finally, "Price Difference/Excess Payments for Confirmed Installment
Sales but are Reported as C.O.D. Sales" refers to installment sales
which were reported as C.O.D. or cash-an-delivery sales. Reporting them
as C.O.D. sales deprived Alson's Polangui of the mark-up since the
prices of stocks were higher when paid on installment instead of cash.
26The above audit conducted by Pan became the basis of Zenaida's
accountabilities, and subsequently, of the criminal charge against her.
Meanwhile, Repuyan, the cashier/secretary of Alson's Polangui, testified that her main duties are: "issuance of receipts to customers;
preparation of documents for delivery of stocks; and collection of
remittances from customers."
27 She claimed that she religiously remitted the collections to Zenaida who, in turn, issued her acknowledgment receipts.
28 It would then be Zenaida's duty to deposit the collections to
Ballesteros' bank account. When asked about the acknowledgment receipts
that Zenaida supposedly executed, as well as the columnar logbook she
prepared for Alson's Polangui, Repuyan testified:
chanroblesvirtualawlibraryx x x She explained though, that she failed to produce the
acknowledgment receipts during the audit because the original copies
were borrowed by the daughter of [Zenaida], Swisa Manjares King sometime in September but who, upon demand, refused to return them until now.
The photocopies of said acknowledgment receipts kept in the drawer of
her table were also lost, hence, she had the incident recorded (Exhibit
TT) in the police blotter. [Zenaida] had all the original keys in the
office, while she had the duplicate. At the time of said loss, [Zenaida] was still reporting in the office. Only [Zenaida] deposits the
collections in the bank, the Philippine National Bank, Polangui Branch,
or Legazpi Savings Bank, [Polangui] Branch.
Cross-examined, witness explained that she reported the loss of the
acknowledgment receipts only on October 12, 1998, despite their loss on
September 26, 1998, because she thought Swisa Manjares King would still
return them. She did not, however, require Swisa to sign any document to prove that she borrowed them nor was anybody present in the office when she lent them to her. She only made a verbal demand for the return of
the acknowledgment receipts. Neither did she have Swisa summoned by the
Barangay Captain or the police. She admitted that when the audit started in July, 1998, [Zenaida] was no longer "active" in the office.
On redirect, witness clarified that although [Zenaida] ceased to be branch manager from July, 1998, she was still reported (sic) to the office because she resigned only on October 19, 1998. Despite
the loss of the [acknowledgment] receipts, the columnar books for the
year 1997 (Exhibit D-52 up to D-70) and 1998 (Exhibit D-71 up to D-72)
reflected the amounts of her remittances to [Zenaida] on a day-to-day
basis. She started recording the amounts of her remittances [Zenaida]
from December 18, 1996 (Exhibit D-18) up to July 21, 1998 (Exhibit
D-73).
On re-cross examination, witness reiterated that [Zenaida] still
reported to the office every day from July to October, 1998. She
confirmed the signature of Marilou Manjares, daughter of [Zenaida]
appearing in one entry (Exhibit D-45) in the columnar book. She admitted that the amounts for deposit as stated in the columnar books was no
proof that they were received by [Zenaida]. She explained though, that
[Zenaida] does not need to sign the columnar book because she instead
issued [acknowledgment] receipts.
Clarified by the court, witness revealed that it was Mr. Ballesteros who required the audit when he suspected some irregularities committed by
[Zenaida] in the management of the branch. She further explained that
[Zenaida] owned the office table where the acknowledgment receipts were
kept, hence, the latter has duplicate keys to the drawers. She admitted
her mistake in having lent the original receipts to the daughter of
[Zenaida] and keeping the photocopies in the drawer to which the
[Zenaida] had a key. In the morning of September 25, Swisa borrowed the
receipts upon request of [Zenaida], promising to return them the
following morning. However, Swisa no longer returned them despite her
demands. She agreed that without the receipts, she cannot prove that she remitted all the money that came to her. She informed the auditor of
the loss of the photocopies on September
27, 1998. She added that per company procedure, a copy of the deposit
slip is given to her (witness) for checking if the amount therein
corresponded to the amount in the acknowledgment receipt. The deposit
slips covering December 18, 1996 up to July, 1998 were already submitted to the main office in Iriga City. She was not promoted after that
"fiasco" in 1998.29
As to the other witnesses from the prosecution, their testimonies were summarized by the RTC as follows:
chanroblesvirtualawlibraryPABLO H. MENDOZA x x x - He is one of the customers who bought a Sharp karaoke. He identified and affirmed the veracity of his Certification issued on
September 16, 1998. His Certification was about the karaoke he bought
which was not repaired and remained in his possession until now.
[Zenaida] transacted the purchase of said item to him. Upon its
delivery, he paid Php1,000.00 to [Zenaida] and in June, Php1,400.00. All in all, Php2,400.00 but [Zenaida] did not issue receipts to him.
Alson's was able to locate this karaoke because of the signature of his
wife in the blank Delivery Receipt (Exhibit DD-2). He also signed blank
documents, such as the Warranty Card, Delivery Receipt, Sales Invoice,
Credit Application Sheet, Promissory Note, Chattel Mortgage, Application for Credit (Exhibit DD-1 up to DD-7).
When clarified by the court, he claimed to have given [Php1,000.00] to a certain Amor, an agent of Alson's Trading, who delivered the karaoke in his house but [Zenaida] was not present during the delivery. He later
gave an additional [Php1,400.00] to Amor. He made the purchase only
through brochures shown by Amor, without going to Alson's Polangui. He
recalled signing the Promissory Note and Delivery Receipt when the unit
was delivered by Amor in his house. He only went to Alson's when the
unit became defective, which [Zenaida] promised to replace. When it was
not replaced, he no longer made any payments.
RODRIGO VALENCIANO x x x - He is the husband of Lina Valenciano,
who bought a Sony VHS player on installment from Alson's Trading
Polangui, but which had been fully paid. He identified his wife's
signature (Exhibit JJ-1) in the delivery receipt dated September, 1997.
Other than that, he has no personal knowledge regarding the purchase and delivery of aforesaid item.
ANTONIO NOLES x x x - He purchased a TV set from Alson's Polangui branch in 1997, wherein [Zenaida] was the one who attended to him. As
direct buyer, he paid a discounted price of [Php5,300.00], from the
original price of [Php6,000] but the receipt given to him was already
lost. Witness admitted that all he could recall was that he paid
[Php5,300.00] for said appliance, although the delivery receipt (Exhibit UUU) he signed dated February 14, 1997 indicated the amount of
[Php5,000.00].30
For her defense, Zenaida took the witness stand and disclaimed liability over the amounts charged to her based on Pan's audit. According to her, Ballesteros told her to focus her attention outside the store to
increase the sale of items in order to achieve the monthly sales quota.
Hence, the transactions in the office were delegated to Repuyan, who was also tasked to issue receipts for payments made by the buyers.
31 She also claimed to have deposited in Ballesteros' bank accounts all
the collections remitted to her by Repuyan. She narrated that she did
not sign or prepare any document for said amounts received for deposit,
but she prepared three copies of deposit slips - one for the bank, one
for Repuyan, and another for her own copy.
32 Other than this, Repuyan had the duty of attending to the necessary documentation of sales in the office.
33The case was then submitted for decision.
RULING OF THE RTCThe RTC issued the Judgment dated March 18, 2010, the dispositive portion of which states:
chanroblesvirtualawlibraryWHEREFORE, under the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
a. Finding accused, ZENAIDA [LAYSON VDA DE MANJARES], GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of ESTAFA, defined and penalized under par. 1(b), Article 315, Revised Penal Code, for having misappropriated for her personal benefit and by means of
deceit and/or abuse of confidence, the total amount of Six Hundred
Ninety-Four Thousand Six Hundred Sixty-Seven Pesos and Nine Centavos
[(Php694,667.09)], from Alson's Trading, Polangui Branch, owned by Mr.
Paulo Ballesteros, Jr.; thereby, sentencing accused to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from TEN (10) YEARS of prision mayor as minimum, to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS of reclusion temporal as maximum, with the accessory penalties therewith, as provided by law.
b. On account of the express reservation and institution by complainant of a separate civil action for the crime herein charged, no finding or
award of civil damages is made.
SO ORDERED.34
The RTC convicted Zenaida, ruling that the evidence established by the prosecution established all the elements of the crime of
estafa. The RTC, however, held that the amount misappropriated by Zenaida was
only P694,667.09 based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Aggrieved, Zenaida appealed to the CA.
RULING OF THE CAIn the Decision dated November 12, 2012, the CA affirmed Zenaida's conviction
in toto. The CA also found that all the elements of
estafa were present. Zenaida sought reconsideration, but the CA denied this in the Resolution dated May 20, 2013.
Hence, the instant appeal.
ISSUEFor resolution of the Court is whether the CA erred in affirming Zenaida's conviction for
estafa.
THE COURT'S RULINGThe appeal is meritorious. The Court reverses Zenaida's conviction for
estafa.
The elements of
estafa through conversion or misappropriation, punished under Article 315(l)(b) of the RPC are:
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary(1) that personal property is received in trust, on
commission, for administration or under any other circumstance involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though the
obligation is guaranteed by a bond;
(2) that there is conversion or diversion of such property by the person who has so received it or a denial on his part that he received it;
(3) that such conversion, diversion or denial is to the injury of another; and
(4) that there be demand for the return of the property.35
In the case at bar, the Court finds that not all the elements of
estafa are present. Particularly, the first two elements of
estafa were not established.
First element: That
personal property is received in trust, on commission, for
administration, or under any other circumstance involving the duty to
make delivery of or to return the same | |
Anent the first element, when "the money, goods, or any other personal
property is received by the offender from the offended party (1) in
trust or (2) on commission or (3) for administration, the offender
acquires
both material or physical possession and juridical possession of the thing received."
36The RTC, in explaining the existence of the first element, explained:
chanroblesvirtualawlibraryFinally, when [Zenaida] received the stocks delivered, she
acquired not only the physical but also the juridical possession
thereof. This is so because upon receipt of the stocks, a fiduciary
relationship was created whereby [Zenaida] had the duty to sell the
stocks and remit the proceeds thereof to Alson's bank account or, to
return/account those not sold, upon demand. [Zenaida] herself
acknowledged such juridical possession when she admitted on
cross-examination, that it was her obligation to sell the products and
remit their proceeds to Mr. Ballesteros.37 (Underscoring supplied)
The CA, in its Decision, simply affirmed the RTC and concluded that
Zenaida received the goods "in trust" from Ballesteros but did not
elaborate as to its basis.
The Court, however, finds that Zenaida only had material possession, and not juridical possession, of the goods delivered to her for sale in
Alson's Polangui.
It is undisputed that Zenaida was the "branch manager" of Alson's
Polangui. Unfortunately, Ballesteros and Zenaida did not have a written
agreement as to what Zenaida's responsibilities were; thus, the evidence in this case hinged altogether on testimonial evidence. The
prosecution's own evidence, presented through the testimony of
Ballesteros, is as follows:
chanroblesvirtualawlibraryAsked by the court, complainant maintained that from the time [Zenaida] started managing Alson's Polangui branch, he had an employer employee relationship with her. As his employee, she was paid a monthly salary of (Php5,000.00], plus additional benefits if she meets the sales quota of almost half a million pesos in a month, at that time. He was
the one who paid the salaries of the secretary/cashier and utility and
the monthly rental of [Php2,000.00] for the store space, which rental was paid through [Zenaida] because it was she who had a (lease) contract with the Bichara family.
Cross-examined, Mr. Ballesteros averred that when Alson's Polangui started its operation, he already prevented [Zenaida] from continuing with her previous business of buying and selling appliances, because it was incompatible to his business. There was no written
employment contract with [Zenaida] and all instructions to her were also verbal. [Zenaida] directly reported to him about the operation of the business. While he delegated to [Zenaida] the selection of a SecretaryCashier
and Utility, he was the one who explained to the latter their duties and functions in the office.38 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The foregoing testimony was corroborated by Zenaida and Repuyan, both of whom essentially testified that Ballesteros had control over the
operations of Alson's Polangui through his verbal instructions. To the
mind of the Court, these testimonies establish that Zenaida was a mere
employee
not an agent - of Ballesteros and Alson's Polangui.
In
Chua-Burce v. Court of Appeals,
39 the Court, citing
People v. Locson40 and
Guzman v. Court of Appeals,
41 emphasized that "[j]uridical possession means a possession which gives
the transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set up
even against the owner."
42 The Court held that the cash custodian of a bank who misappropriated the bank's funds was not guilty of
estafa for she only had material possession of the missing funds. The Court
explained the distinction between material possession and juridical
possession in this wise:
chanroblesvirtualawlibraryThere is an essential distinction between the possession by a receiving teller of funds received from third persons paid to the bank, and an agent who receives the proceeds of sales of merchandise
delivered to him in agency by his principal. In the former case, payment by third persons to the teller is payment to the bank itself; the
teller is a mere custodian or keeper of the funds received, and has no
independent right or title to retain or possess the same as against the
bank. An agent, on the other hand, can even assert, as against his
own principal, an independent, autonomous, right to retain money or
goods received in consequence of the agency; as when the principal fails to reimburse him for advances he has made, and indemnify him for
damages suffered without his fault.43 (Emphasis supplied)
In the present case, the records are bereft of any evidence pointing to
an existence of agency between Zenaida and Ballesteros. There is
likewise no proof that Zenaida received the items delivered to Alson's
Polangui on consignment basis, or that any title passed to her by virtue of the said delivery. The Court cannot find anything which indicates
that Zenaida would have independent title over the goods as against
Ballesteros. Ballesteros had (1) the power to control the operations of
Alson's Polangui, (2) the power to control what Zenaida could and could
not do, and (3) the responsibility to pay the salaries of all Alson's
Polangui's employees, including Zenaida. The foregoing indicates the
existence of employer-employee relationship between Ballesteros and
Zenaida. Thus, the Court holds that Zenaida did not have juridical
possession of the goods delivered to her.
The first element of
estafa is therefore absent. On this ground
alone, Zenaida should already be acquitted. The Court deems it prudent,
however, to discuss the absence of the second element to further bolster the fact that there is reasonable doubt on Zenaida's criminal
liability.
Second element: conversion or diversion of such property by the person who has so received it | |
As to the second element,
the words "convert" and "misappropriate" connote an act of
using or disposing of another's property as if it were one's own, or of
devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To
misappropriate to one's own use includes, not only conversion to one's
personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without right.44
After a review of the evidence, the Court finds that the prosecution
failed to establish the existence of misappropriation beyond reasonable
doubt. On this score, the Court deems it proper to illustrate the
failure of the evidence to establish Zenaida's guilt through each of the items in Pan's audit:
A. "Undeposited Net Collection for the Day"
B. "Net Short Deposit of Collection for the Day"For these two items, Zenaida's liability was determined by comparing the amounts in Repuyan's columnar logbook vis-a-vis the amounts deposited
by Zenaida to Ballesteros' bank accounts as indicated in the deposit
slips. The difference in the amounts were held to be misappropriated by
Zenaida. The RTC gave credence to the columnar logbooks because they
were "entries in the course of business" following the Rule 130, Section 43 of the 1989 Rules on Evidence.
45The RTC and the CA erred in anchoring Zenaida's criminal liability on
the entries in Repuyan's columnar logbook. To recall, Repuyan herself
testified that she was in charge of "issuance of receipts to customers;
preparation of documents for delivery of stocks; and collection of
remittances from customers."
46 In addition, Ballesteros testified that although he authorized Zenaida to hire a utility and secretary/cashier,
he specifically instructed Repuyan to be the one to receive the payments and deposit the collections in the bank. But since he seldom visited the branch, he later discovered that Zenaida was the one depositing the collections in the bank.
47From the testimonies of Repuyan, Ballesteros, and Zenaida, it appears
that it was Repuyan who transacted with the buyers. Repuyan was the one
in charge of receiving the payment from buyers and issuing the
corresponding receipts. She would then make an entry into the columnar
logbook, and remit the collections to Zenaida, who would then deposit
the money in Ballesteros' bank accounts. Accomplishing the columnar
logbooks and making entries therein were, therefore,
solely under Repuyan's control. Zenaida had no hand in their preparation, and neither were they ever signed by her.
Instead, Repuyan claimed that when she would remit money to Zenaida, the latter would issue acknowledgement receipts to her. When asked to
present these acknowledgment receipts to prove that Zenaida indeed
received the exact amotmts reflected in the columnar logbooks, she
stated that Zenaida's daughter, Swisa Manjares King (Swisa), had
borrowed and had never returned the originals. She also stated that she
had photocopies of these acknowledgment receipts, but they were also
lost because she kept them in a drawer that Zenaida had access to. All
of these claims, however, were uncorroborated. Zenaida denied executing
acknowledgement receipts, and claimed to only execute three deposit
slips each time Repuyan would remit money to her for deposit. No one
also witnessed that Swisa indeed borrowed the originals, if they even
really existed.
Given the foregoing, the columnar logbooks are worthless in proving that Zenaida received more than what she deposited in Ballesteros' bank
accounts. That the columnar logbooks were "entries in the course of
business" is immaterial, for such evidentiary rule only determines the
admissibility of the logbooks, not their evidentiary weight. The
prosecution was not able to prove that the amounts in the columnar
logbooks exactly reflects what Zenaida received. Repuyan herself
"admitted that amounts for deposit as stated in the columnar books was
no proof that they were received by [Zenaida]."
48To emphasize, the preparation and accomplishment of the columnar
logbooks was under the responsibility and control of Repuyan alone.
Under the rule on
res inter alios acta, "the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another."
49 Hence, the columnar logbooks, accomplished completely by a third
person, cannot prejudice Zenaida. Simply put, the columnar logbooks, by
themselves, cannot be used as the basis to determine her liability.
Considering that the evidence to rebut her innocence were the columnar
logbooks - basically self-serving documents by Repuyan - then it was
error for the RTC and the CA that Zenaida's guilt was proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
At this juncture, it is important to point out a glaring fact which both the RTC and the CA missed. In her testimony, Repuyan admitted that "per company procedure,
a copy of the deposit slip is given to her x x x
for checking if the amount therein corresponded to the amount in the
[acknowledgment] receipt."
50 If Zenaida truly did not deposit certain amounts, or she deposited less than what she received from Repuyan, then the latter would have been
easily alerted of the same. A simple comparison between her copy of the
deposit slips, on the one hand, and the columnar logbooks and the
acknowledgment receipts, on the other, would have enabled her to notice
that Zenaida was pocketing money that rightfully belonged to
Ballesteros. Yet, she alerted no one, and it was not until Ballesteros
asked Pan to conduct an audit of Alson's Polangui that the
irregularities were supposedly discovered. This glaring fact all the
more points to the plausibility of Zenaida's defense: that she was
depositing in Ballesteros' bank accounts all the collections that
Repuyan remitted to her.
C. "Disallowed Payment of Salesman Commission"To recall, these refer to amounts which were paid to fictitious agents,
or the agents themselves claimed to have not received the amounts as
stated. The amounts paid were culled by Pan from "receivable cards" of
customers. Meanwhile, Zenaida disclaimed any knowledge of such payments, pointing out that agents transacted directly with Repuyan.
51Similar to the first two items, these "receivable cards" cannot be made a basis for Zenaida's criminal liability. The prosecution did not present any evidence that Zenaida had any participation in making entries in
the said "receivable cards." It is well to remember that, based on the
testimonies of Zenaida, Ballesteros, and Repuyan, it was Repuyan who was in charge of preparing documents relative to the payments of customers. There is no evidence on record that Zenaida dealt with the agents
themselves. Moreover, there is also doubt on whether there were agents
who did not receive their commissions. The prosecution only presented
Pan to testify to this fact in the course of testifying on his audit
findings. The agents who claimed that they did not receive anything,
however, were never presented in court. They were therefore not
cross-examined regarding their claims. Thus, the finding that these
agents did not receive their commissions is supported by mere hearsay
evidence which has no probative weight.
D. "Unreplaced Bounced Check Used for Liquidation of Stocks"For this item, it was alleged that there was a check for P10,000.00 that was returned for insufficient funds. The allegation was that Zenaida
transacted with four customers, all of whom paid in cash for a total of
P9,991.00. Instead of depositing it directly into Ballesteros' bank
account, she deposited the check into said bank account, which check was returned for insufficient funds.
Once again, this cannot be used to adjudge Zenaida guilty of the charge. First of all, the prosecution did not present anything to prove this
allegation apart from Pan's testimony The prosecution did not present
the check itself or any other document from the bank proving that the
check bounced.
As well, it is worth to recall that based on the testimonial evidence in this case, it was Repuyan who was transacting with customers. In fact,
as Zenaida pointed out, the delivery receipts issued to the four
customers were not signed by her.
52 Moreover, there is a discrepancy, albeit minimal, between the amounts
allegedly collected as compared to the one Zenaida tried to deposit. Why would Zenaida deposit try to deposit P10,000, when what was supposedly
given to her was merely P9,991.00?
Given the foregoing, the Court finds that there is very serious doubt as to Zenaida's accountability on this item.
E. "Unreceipted/Undeposited C.O.D. Sales"The amounts charged against Zenaida on this item were again obtained
from the colunmar logbooks. These refer to items which were traced to
have been delivered to customers but there were no entries in the
colunmar logbooks representing said sales.
To prove that Zenaida had a general practice of receiving money without
issuing receipts, the prosecution presented Mendoza, a customer, on the
witness stand. However, his testimony did not prove anything considering that upon clarification during cross-examination, it was revealed that
Mendoza never personally gave money to Zenaida. As narrated in the facts above, his testimony was that in the two instances when he paid money
to Alson's Polangui but was not issued any receipt, he handed the money
to a certain "Amor," not to Zenaida.
It is clear from the foregoing alone that the evidence was utterly
wanting as regards Zenaida's liability under this item. It is worth to
reiterate that Zenaida did not have any participation in the preparation of the logbooks. Repuyan was in charge of "preparation of documents for delivery of stocks"
53 and
was in full control of what was entered into the logbooks. Zenaida
cannot be adjudged criminally liable based on the acts of another
person, unless there is a finding of conspiracy between them. There
being none in this case, Zenaida must be absolved of criminal liability
in this item.
F. "Customers with Remaining Balance but has (sic) Fully Paid"These refer to installment sales wherein the customers claimed to have
already paid a larger amount than what was reflected in Alson's
Polangui's records. For instance, there was one customer who claimed to
have already paid P17,000.00, but the "index card" in the store's
records, as well as the official receipts issued to the customer only
reflected payments totaling P13,829.00.
54These cannot also be charged to Zenaida. Apart from the lack of clear
evidence of Zenaida' participation in the preparation of the "index
cards," none of the customers alleged to have paid larger amounts were
presented in court to testify on these allegations. The only evidence
that these customers indeed paid a larger amount than what was reflected in the store's records was Pan's testimony as regards his investigation in connection to the audit he conducted. Similar to the alleged unpaid
commissions of agents in item C, the testimony of Pan on this item is
hearsay; therefore, devoid of any evidentiary weight even if it was
admitted into evidence.
G. "Current Cost of Unaccounted Stocks"
H. "Charges for Unaccounted Repossessed Unit"The amounts under these items represent the cost of goods that were
confirmed to have been delivered to Alson's Polangui, or repossessed
from customers by Alson's Polangui, all of which could no longer be
accounted for when Pan was auditing the store. While Zenaida denied any
liability for the goods under this item as the deliveries were handled
by other employees of the store, the lower courts declared that Zenaida
was liable because she was the store's branch manager. The RTC, in
particular, held that Zenaida exercised control and supervision over the work of Repuyan and the other employees. Hence, she was ultimately
liable for the loss of the goods.
The Court disagrees.
While Zenaida may be responsible for the goods as branch manager of the store, she may only, at most, be made liable
civilly for the value of the goods based on the facts of this case. Zenaida cannot be made
criminally liable for the loss of the goods, absent any proof that she converted,
or misappropriated them. As earlier mentioned, Zenaida did not have
juridical possession of the items. Thus, the legal presumption of
misappropriation "when the accused fails to deliver the proceeds of the
sale or to return the items to be sold and fails to give an account of
their whereabouts"
55 does not arise in this case. In other words, to make her
criminally liable for the loss of the goods, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to offer evidence that it was she who took or misappropriated the goods - and not someone else who had access to the store. The reasoning of
the lower courts effectively convicts Zenaida of
estafa for her negligence as a branch manager which cannot be countenanced by the Court.
I. "Price Difference/Excess Payments for Unaccounted Stocks Confirmed to be Delivered to Customers"For this item, the Court simply affirms the RTC's finding,
56 as upheld by the CA, that the prosecution failed to offer any evidence to support this alleged accountability.
J. "Confirmed Short Remittance of C.O.D. Sales"
K. "Price Difference/Excess Payments for Confirmed Installment Sales but are Reported as C.O.D. Sales"For these items, Zenaida's defense was that there was an agreement
between her and Ballesteros that the amount of "overprice" would be
given to her.
57 She explained that she was allowed to get additional remuneration from the "overprice in the cash sales of appliances."
58 She also explained that the customer copies of delivery receipts for
cash transactions would reflect the "overprice" - the price as
advertised - so that the buyer would not suspect that there was an
"overprice."
59 What was reflected in the office copy of the delivery receipts was the "listed company price" of the stocks being purchased.
60The Court rules that there is also reasonable doubt on Zenaida's liability on this item.
The Court has, time and again, declared that if the inculpatory facts
and circumstances are capable of two or more interpretations, one of
which being consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other
or others consistent with his guilt, then the evidence in view of the
constitutional presumption of innocence has not fulfilled the test of
moral certainty and is thus insufficient to support a conviction.
61In this case, the inculpatory acts could be interpreted as evidence of
estafa, on the one hand, or could be perfectly explained by the agreement
between Zenaida and Ballesteros, on the other. While Zenaida's defense
appears like a convenient excuse, it is important to note that, as
mentioned, Ballesteros and Zenaida did not have a written memorandum of
their agreements. The Court, and even the lower courts, have had to rely only on the testimonies of the both of them to establish what their
agreements were.
For this item, Zenaida insists that Ballesteros allowed her by agreement to charge an "overprice" as additional compensation. Meanwhile,
Ballesteros did not have any testimony regarding the existence of such
agreement. Neither has he denied its existence. Ballesteros only
testified that he has prohibited Zenaida from further engaging in her
buy-and-sell business when she started as his branch manager as he
deemed it inconsistent with his business. To the mind of the Court, this further bolsters the possibility that Zenaida and Ballesteros indeed
had an agreement so that the former could have additional compensation
on top of her P5,000.00 monthly salary as his branch manager.
In sum, the Court rules that for this particular alleged accountability, there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of Zenaida. To reiterate for
emphasis, "
[i]f the evidence is susceptible of two interpretations,
one consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other
consistent with his guilt, the accused must be acquitted."
62 "The overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the
innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt."
63ConclusionIt must be clarified that the Court is not saying that Zenaida is, or
should be, completely free from liability. The Court recognizes that
Zenaida may be said to have been remiss in performing her duties as
branch manager. Nevertheless, this only makes her possibly
civilly liable to Ballesteros or Alson's Polangui. The Court, however, would
not pronounce any civil liability in this case yet because Ballesteros
properly reserved his right to file a separate civil action against
Zenaida on the same set of facts.
The Court's pronouncement in this case is only limited to Zenaida's criminal liability for
estafa - and from the foregoing discussions, it is clear that two of the elements of
estafa were either not present or not sufficiently proven by the prosecution. As a result, Zenaida must perforce be acquitted.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated November
12, 2012 and Resolution dated May 20, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. CR No. 33373 is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner Zenaida Layson Vda. de Manjares is
ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrarySO ORDERED.Gesmundo, C.J., (Chairperson), Carandang, Zalameda, and
Gaerlan, JJ., concur.
chanrobleslawlibraryEndnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 10-22.
2 Id. at 84-98. Penned by
Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of this Court),
with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo and Angelita A.
Gacutan concurring.
3 Id. at 110.
4 Id. at 35-63. Penned by Presiding Judge Edwin C. Ma-alat.
5 Id. at 85.
6 Id. at 85-86.
7 "Noles" in some parts of the record.
8Rollo, pp. 42, 49.
9 Id. at 42.
10 Id. at 52.
11 Id. at 43.
12 Id. at 42-43.
13 Id. at 87.
14 Total based on the
summary of the CA and the Information filed against Zenaida, although
the sum of the amounts as itemized is P789, 135.09.
15Rollo, p. 57.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 37, 58.
19 Id. at 58-59.
20 Id. at 59.
21 Id. at 37, 59.
22 Id. at 59.
23 Id. at 60.
24 Id.
25 Id.
26 Id. at 61.
27 Id. at 40.
28 Id.
29 Id. at 40-41.
30 Id. at 41-42.
31 Id. at 49.
32 Id. at 49-50.
33 Id. at 50.
34 Id. at 62-63.
35Chua-Burce v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109595, April 27, 2000, 331 SCRA 1, 12-13.
36 Id. at 13.
37Rollo, p. 54.
38 Id. at 43-44.
39 Supra note 35.
40 57 Phil. 325 (1932).
41 99 Phil. 703 (1956).
42 Supra note 35, at 13.
43 Id. at 14.
44Saddul, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91041, December 10, 1990, 192 SCRA 277, 285-286.
45 "Commercial Lists and the Like" under the 2019 RULES ON EVIDENCE, Rule 130, Section 47.
46Rollo, p. 40.
47 Id. at 44.
48 Id. at 41.
49Tamargo v. Awingan, G.R. No. 177727, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 316, 331.
50Rollo, p. 41. Emphasis supplied.
51 Id. at 50.
52 Id.
53 Id. at 40.
54 Id. at 59.
55Legaspi v. People, G.R. Nos. 225753 & 225799, October 15, 2018, 883 SCRA 245,259, citing Tria v. People, 743 Phil. 441 (2014).
56Rollo, p. 60.
57 Id. at 60-61.
58 Id. at 49.
59 Id. at 52.
60 Id.
61Franco v. People, 780 Phil. 36, 50 (2016).
62People v. Salidaga y Quintana, G.R. No. 172323, January 29, 2007, 513 SCRA 306, 319. Emphasis supplied.
63 Id. cralawredlibrary