People v. Perez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Sylvia Perez (Perez) was employed as the Accounts Receivable and Recording Clerk of Storck Products, Inc. (Storck) from 1984 to 1993. An Information was filed against her for estafa under Article 315 (1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code, alleging that from October 1990 to September 1993, she misappropriated P148,160.35 in cash collections received from the company's salesmen, with the obligation to remit it to Storck. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City found Perez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa, but reduced the misappropriated amount to P83,755.50 and ordered her to pay Storck P63,755.50, representing the balance after deducting her initial payment of P20,000.00. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed Perez's appeal, affirming her conviction. The Petition: Perez filed a petition for review, assailing the CA's decision. She argued that the prosecution failed to present direct or circumstantial evidence proving she committed estafa and that the first element of estafa, namely the receipt of the money, was not proven. She also disputed the genuineness of an affidavit of undertaking she allegedly signed and argued that her husband's promissory note should not be considered an admission of guilt.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the judgment of conviction despite the lack of evidence, direct or circumstantial, that petitioner committed estafa under paragraph 1(b), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the judgment of conviction despite the failure of the prosecution to prove the first element of estafa under paragraph 1(b), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. Sylvia Perez is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa under Article 315 (1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional to 12 years, 8 months and 21 days of reclusion temporal. She is ordered to pay Storck Products, Inc. P63,755.50 as actual damages and to pay the costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the judgment of conviction despite the alleged lack of evidence: The Court found no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts, which are entitled to great weight and respect. The testimonial evidence of Storck's employees, Ricardo Barreto, Julita Ventonilla, Estrella Santiago, and Jessie Sincero, established the company's procedure for handling cash replacements of bounced checks. These witnesses confirmed that salesmen were supposed to turn over cash replacements to Perez, who was then responsible for remitting them to the treasurer. Perez's failure to do so constituted misappropriation. The Court found the testimonial evidence of Ventonilla, Santiago, and Sincero more credible than Perez's uncorroborated testimony denying receipt of the money. The Court also considered the affidavit of undertaking and the promissory note executed by Perez's husband as further evidence supporting the conviction. Perez's claims that she did not sign the affidavit of undertaking or that she signed a different document were found to be incredible, especially since she admitted her signature was on the affidavit and could not produce the alleged original document. Furthermore, her husband's promissory note was dated after her termination, and her payment of P20,000.00 was made after her termination, which contradicted her claim of acting solely to avoid termination and not as an admission of guilt. The Court found her excuses for not inquiring about the amount owed to be flimsy and self-serving, thus strengthening the case against her. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the judgment of conviction despite the failure of the prosecution to prove the first element of estafa under paragraph 1(b), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code: The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the first element of estafa, which is that the offender received money or property in trust or under an obligation to deliver or return it. The testimonial evidence from Storck's employees, particularly Ventonilla, Santiago, and Sincero, clearly outlined the company procedure. This procedure mandated that salesmen remit cash replacements of bounced checks to Perez, the accounts receivable clerk, who was then obligated to turn over such cash to the treasurer. The testimonies of these witnesses consistently confirmed that this was the established practice and that Perez was the designated recipient of these cash replacements. Therefore, Perez received the money in her capacity as accounts receivable clerk, under an obligation to remit it to the treasurer, satisfying the first element of estafa under Article 315 (1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. Her subsequent failure to remit the collected amounts established the misappropriation and prejudice to the company.
Main Doctrine
The elements of estafa under Article 315 (1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) the offender receives money or property in trust or under an obligation to deliver or return it; (2) the offender misappropriates or converts it or denies receiving it; (3) the misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of the owner; and (4) the owner demands its return. Testimonial evidence from co-employees, coupled with an affidavit of undertaking and a promissory note, can sufficiently establish these elements beyond reasonable doubt, even if the accused disputes the genuineness of the documents.