Libunao v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Baliuag Marketing Co., Inc. (Baliuag), engaged in selling agricultural and chemical products, operated a branch in San Miguel, Bulacan, where petitioner Anicia S. Libunao served as overall in-charge and cashier from April 1994 to October 1995. During this period, the store suffered sales losses and missing merchandise, prompting inventories that revealed falsified receipts, sales invoices, unreported sales, and unremitted collections totaling P304,040 (prosecution later claimed P308,880). Specific discrepancies included: Sales Invoice No. 100165 (P27,960, Dr. Edwin Tecson, denied signature/payment); No. 100160 (P196,000, Hog Bakod Multi-Purpose Corp., paid via checks in Nov 1995); No. 4143 (P29,000, Eva Bachoco, partial OR P10,000 unremitted); No. 98801 (P7,800, Lito Alcantara, paid per OR); No. 98861 (P26,340, Arnel Marcelo, partial payment mismatched); and others like No. 95155 (short P16,740) and No. 95138 (P5,040 unremitted). Customers testified to payments to petitioner, supported by ORs or denials of Baliuag demands. Petitioner confronted but failed to explain, made partial payment of P110,000 pre-complaint. Defense claimed harassment post-illegal dismissal complaint (though she resigned due to mistreatment), denied personal handling of deliveries/payments (co-workers involved), asserted remittances/deposits for disputed amounts, but admitted no written explanation as records unavailable. Procedural History: Charged with Estafa under Art. 315(1)(b) RPC for P304,040. RTC-Malolos Br. 14 (Aug 15, 2007) convicted, deducted P110,000 partial payment (liability P198,880), sentenced to 6y1d-12y prision mayor + indemnity + costs. CA (Aug 10, 2010) affirmed guilt but modified penalty to 4y1d prision correccional min-20y reclusion temporal max, no costs. The Petition: Petitioner argues no juridical possession as mere employee/cashier (material only), no proof of misappropriation (prepared invoices but no delivery/payment role), demand insufficient sans conversion proof. OSG counters: prepared invoices/received payments, failure to remit upon demand presumes misappropriation, partial payment admits liability (Rule 131 Sec 2(f)), akin to teller with both possessions.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner acquired juridical possession requisite for Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) RPC, or only material possession converting the offense to Theft under Article 308 RPC. Whether the prosecution proved elements of Estafa/Theft beyond reasonable doubt, including value, penalty, and indemnity.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The CA Decision is MODIFIED: petitioner GUILTY of Theft under Art. 308 r.a.a. Art. 309(3) RPC; indeterminate penalty of 6 months arresto mayor max to 2 years prision correccional min; indemnify Baliuag P194,040 + 6% interest from finality.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Possession and Estafa vs. Theft): Estafa under Art. 315(1)(b) RPC requires: (1) receipt in trust/commission/administration; (2) misappropriation/denial; (3) prejudice; (4) demand. Crucially, both material (physical) and juridical possession (right assertable vs. owner) indispensable, per Chua-Burce v. CA (387 Phil. 15, 2000): trust/commission transfers both; employee like teller/custodian has only material adjunct to employer's juridical possession. Reiterated in Benabaye v. People (755 Phil. 145, 2015): employee collections = material possession only, thus Theft not Estafa. Here, Information specifies receipt 'as cashier' on behalf of Baliuag, obliging immediate remittance; akin to teller, no juridical possession. Petitioner's role (prepare invoices, collect, remit) confirms mere agency adjunct to employment. Thus, no Estafa; convicts for Theft as Information alleges taking without consent, intent to gain (Art. 308 RPC). Elements proven: (1) taking (prepared invoices, customer payments testified); (2) Baliuag's property; (3) sans consent (failure to remit/demand); (4) intent to gain (non-remittance, partial payment admission); (5) no violence. Sales invoices presume payment/consummation (CA correctly noted), ORs/customer testimonies corroborate; partial P110,000 payment (pre-complaint) admits liability per Rule 131(2)(f). Grave abuse of confidence (accountable officer) unalleged, thus simple Theft. On Issue 2 (Proof, Value, Penalty): Prosecution proved via Helen Macasadia (unremitted invoices), Virginia Samonte (discrepancies totaling P308,880, unamended), customer witnesses (Romeo Paladin, Macario Libunao Jr., etc., confirming payments to petitioner). Petitioner's defenses (harassment, co-worker handling, remittances) unsubstantiated; admitted no explanation, records unavailable. Value: Information's P304,040 unamended (despite P308,880 testimony), deduct P110,000 = P194,040 liability. Penalty per Art. 309(3) as amended RA 10951 (P20k-P600k): prision correccional min/med periods; medium period (no modifs): 1y8m21d-2y11m10d. ISL min: arresto mayor med-max (2m1d-6m), maxed at 6m; SC imposed 6m arresto mayor to 2y prision correccional. Indemnity P194,040 + 6% interest from finality (Neri doctrine).
Main Doctrine
For Estafa through misappropriation under Article 315(1)(b) RPC, the offender must have both material (physical) and juridical possession (right over the thing assertable against the owner) of the money or property received in trust, on commission, for administration, or under similar obligation. Employees like cashiers or collectors, receiving payments on behalf of employers, hold only material possession adjunct to employment, retaining juridical possession with the employer, thus precluding Estafa and constituting Theft instead. This is illustrated by analogies to bank tellers or custodians, where conversion equates to Theft under Article 308 RPC. Sales invoices prepared by the employee and customer testimonies of payment, coupled with failure to remit upon demand and partial restitution, establish Theft elements: taking without consent, intent to gain, belonging to another, sans violence. Penalty for Theft where value exceeds P20,000 but not P600,000 (per RA 10951) is prision correccional minimum/medium periods in medium period absent modifiers, with Indeterminate Sentence Law applied.