10/29/2016

G.R. No. 176114

TodayisSaturday,October29,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
BaguioCity
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.176114April8,2015
GRACESANDIEGOyTRINIDAD,Petitioner,
vs.
THEPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Respondent.
DECISION
PERALTA,J.:
ForresolutionofthisCourtisthePetitionforReview,datedJanuary23,2007,ofpetitionerGraceSanDiegowhich
seeks to reverse arid set aside the Decision1 and Resolution,2 dated March 6, 2006 and December 14, 2006,
respectively, of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming with modification the Decision3 dated August 20, 2001 of the
RegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofMalolos,Bulacan,Branch17,findingherguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrime
ofqualifiedtheft.
Thefollowingaretheantecedentfactsasfoundintherecords.
Petitioner Grace San Diego had been the accountant of Obando Fisherman's MultiPurpose Cooperative, Inc.
(OFMPCI)fromJanuary1993toMarch11,1997.Petitionerwasinchargeofaccountingallbusinesstransactionsof
the cooperative and performed the functions of cashier and teller, granted loans and did check discounting and
trading.Shealsorecordedandreportedthecashinbanktransactionsandsummarizedthebanktransactionsfor
the day and was also entrusted with a set of blank checks presigned and was authorized to fill up the checks,
particularlythedate,theamountinwordsandinfigures,andthepayee.
That from November 18, 1996 to January 6, 1997, petitioner acted as cashier when Teresita Gonzales was on
maternity leave and acted as teller from January 13 30, 1997 when Flordeliza Ocampo was on her honeymoon.
Shethen,onbothoccasions,hadcompleteaccesstothecashvaultsandfilingcabinetsofthecooperativewhereits
documentswerekept.
OnMarch12,1997,petitionerstoppedreportingforwork.NarcisoCorrea,theGeneralManagerofthecooperative,
theninstructedthebookkeeper,AngelitaDimapelis,topreparebankbookbalancebasedonthecashtransactions
duringthedayattheoffice.TheytriedtoestablishtheaccountabilityofSanDiegobycomparingthecashposition
she prepared and certified as correct against the balances of the bank. Dimapelis asked the different depository
banks for their bank balances since their savings account passbooks and bank statements were missing at that
time.4
ItwasonlyafterCorresandDimapelisreconciledthecashpositionwiththebankbalancesthattheydiscoveredthe
discrepanciesinpetitioner'sreport.TheauditedfigureshowedthecashonhandinbanktobePhp3,712,442.80as
of March 11, 1997.However, petitioner reported and certified the cash on hand of the cooperative with the total
amount of Php9,590,455.17 to be correct. Dimapelis reported the said discrepancies to Correa and the Board of
Directors.ItwasthenthattheydecidedtofileacriminalcomplaintagainstSanDiego.5
Thus,anInformationwasfiledagainstpetitionerforthecrimeofqualifiedtheft,6whichreadsasfollows:
That [on] or about the period from January 1996 up to March 1997 in the [M]unicipality of Obando, [P]rovince of
Bulacan,PhilippinesandwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,beingemployed
as accountant, cashier and teller of Obando Fisherman's MultiPurpose Cooperative, Inc. (OFMPCI) and as such
hadaccesstothebooks,cashvaultsandbankdepositsoftheCooperativeandwithgraveabuseofconfidence,did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of
Obando Fisherman's MultiPurpose Cooperative, Inc., take, steal and carry away with her cash amounting to
Php6,016,084.26,to[the]damageandprejudiceofthesaidObandoFisherman'sMultiPurposeCooperative,Inc.,
inthesaidamountofPhp6,016,084.26.CONTRARYTOLAW.7
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/apr2015/gr_176114_2015.html

1/7

10/29/2016

G.R. No. 176114

Upon arraignment on December 11, 1987, the accused, then assisted by counsel de oficio for arraignment only,
enteredapleaofnotguilty.Thepretrialhavingbeenwaived,trialonthemeritsensued.
Theprosecution,toprovetheabovestatedfacts,presentedthetestimoniesofAlfonsoPiscasio,itsexpertwitness,
NarcisoCorrea,AngelitaDemapilis,TeresitaGonzales,NoelHilarioandSantiagoPanganiban.Thetestimoniesof
Dante Liwanag, Cecilia Sayo and Jessybelle San Diego were dispensed with. The defense, on the other hand,
presented the testimonies of Alberto C. Gonzales and Criselda SarmientoOplas. The testimony of Oplas, the
defense'sexpertwitness,canbesummarizedasfollows:
Oplasstatedthatshewentoverthebankreconciliationstatementsforthewholeyearof1996andJanuarytoMarch
1997,thefinancialstatementscalledfinancialconditionsandthefinancialoperationsofthecompanyfortheyears
ending December 1996 and March 1997. She noticed that one of the recording items stated "overstatement of
deposit" or overecording of deposit so that it was deducted from the book. Another reconciling item stated
"understatementdeposit"anditwasadded.In"overstatementofdeposit,"shefoundanotation"shortage"butdid
not find that the amount added in the case of understatement of deposit was offset against the shortage or the
amountdeductedfromthebookincaseofoverstatementofdeposit.8
Consequently, the RTC rendered a Decision dated August 20, 2001, finding petitioner Grace San Diego guilty
beyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimecharged,thus:
WHEREFORE,basedontheforegoingfindings,theCourtherebyfindsaccusedGRACESANDIEGOyTRINIDAD
guiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofQUALIFIEDTHEFTasdefinedandpenalizedunderArticle310,in
relationtoArticles308and309oftheRevisedPenalCode,andaccordingly,sentenceshertosufferthepenaltyof
reclusionperpetuaforfortyyearswithoutpardonbeforethelapseof40yearsandwiththeaccessorypenaltiesof
death under Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code, and to indemnify the Obando Fisherman's MultiPurpose
Cooperative,Inc.,intheamountofPhp6,016,084.26.
SOORDERED.9
Duetothenatureofthejudgment,petitionerfiledherappealwiththisCourt.However,inaccordancewiththeruling
in People v. Mateo,10 the appeal was transmitted to the CA for intermediate review. The CA then affirmed the
decisionoftheRTC,withmodificationthatsheindemnifytheObandoFisherman'sMultiPurposeCooperative,Inc.
intheamountofPhp2,080,000.00.ThedispositiveportionofthesaidDecisionreads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the trial court appealed from which found accusedappellant
guiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofQUALIFIEDTHEFTisherebyAFFIRMEDwiththeMODIFICATION
that she is to indemnify the Obando Fisherman's MultiPurpose Cooperative, Inc. in the amount of Php
2,080,000.00.
SOORDERED.11
Petitioner, after the CA denied her motion for reconsideration, filed with this Court the present petition stating the
followinggrounds:
a)THECOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYABUSEDITSDISCRETIONWHENITHELDTHATTHEPROOF
ADDUCED BY THE PEOPLE SUFFICES TO OVERTURN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE
b) THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE OFFENSE ALLEGED TO
HAVEBEENCOMMITTED,ANDINCONSEQUENCE,COMMITTED[A]GRAVELEGALERRORWHENIT
HELDTHATTHEPROOFADDUCEDCONGRUESWITHTHEOFFENSEWITHWHICHAPPELLANTWAS
CHARGEDAND
c)THECOURTOFAPPEALSLIKEWISECOMMITTEDAGRAVEERROROFLAWINTHEMATTEROF
THEPENALTYIMPOSED.
In its comment dated April 18, 2007, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) stated that impleading the CA is
procedurally improper. It was stressed that the petition was an offshoot of a criminal case, thus, the real party
respondentininterestisthePeopleofthePhilippines.TheOSGprayedthatthepetitionbedismissedoutrightly.
ThisCourtfindsthepresentpetitionpartiallywithmerit.
Itissettledthatabsentanyshowingthatthefindingsaretotallydevoidofsupportintherecords,orthattheyareso
glaringlyerroneousastoconstitutegraveabuseofdiscretion,thefactualfindingsoftheappellatecourtgenerally
areconclusive,andcarryevenmoreweightwhensaidcourtaffirmsthefindingsofthetrialcourt.12Petitionerisof
theopinionthattheCAerredinaffirmingthefactualfindingsoftheRTC.Sheinsiststhattheprosecutionwasnot
abletoproveherguiltbeyondreasonabledoubtbecausetherewasnoproofintheauditthatthecooperativehad
really so much funds and that in consequence there was deficiency of some Php6,000,000 when compared to
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/apr2015/gr_176114_2015.html

2/7

10/29/2016

G.R. No. 176114

pertinentbankstatements.Assuch,petitionerassertsthatitisessentialforasuccessfulprosecutionfortheftthat
theexistenceofthepersonalitystolenbeestablishedbyqualitativeevidence,sotheprosecutionmustfailifnosuch
proofofgoodqualitywasadduced.13
ThisCourtdisagrees.
The CA did not err when it ruled that the proof adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to prove petitioner's guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution presented the testimony of its expert witness, Alfonso Piscasio, the
cooperative's independent auditor since 1992. He stated that his audit was based on standard and generally
accepted auditing procedures.14 The audit report, duly offered and presented in the trial, was supported by
certificationsbyseveraldepositorybanksofthecooperativeindicatingitsbalanceonitsaccount.Recordsarebereft
ofanyshowingthattheauditreportmadebytheindependentauditoriserroneousandunsupportedbydocuments
andbankstatements.Thus,thereliesnoreasonforthisCourtnottoaffordfullfaithandcredittohisreport.
Petitioner'sownexpertwitness,CriseldaSarmientoOplas,failedtodisputetheauditreportpresented.Sheadmitted
tofocusingherreviewonbankreconciliationmadebyPiscasio.15Itwasonlyuponcrossexaminationthatshesaw
thedailycashflowthatpetitionerpreparedandcertified.16Shedidnotgoovertheprimarybooksofaccountsofthe
cooperativeliketheledgers,journalsandvouchersnoritscommercialdocumentssuchasinvoices,returnedchecks
includingaccountdeposits.Shelimitedherselftothemonthlyconciliationreports.17Petitioneralsoassertsthatthe
Peopledidnotpresentanywitnesswhocategoricallytestifiedthatpetitionerranawaywiththesupposedmissing
funds.Sheclaimedthatthedemonstrationthatsomechecksofvaryingamountsnotrecordedinpetitioner'sbooks
notwithstandingtheirreturnordishonor,onlyprovedherincompetenceintheperformanceofherassignedtaskand
notnecessarilycriminalauthorship.
ThisCourtdoesnotagree.ItwasheldinPeoplev.Ragonthatresorttocircumstantialevidenceisinevitablewhen
there are no eyewitnesses to a crime.18 Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix
wherefromatrialcourtmaydrawitsconclusionandfindingofguilt.19Thecourtsareallowedtoruleonthebasesof
circumstantialevidenceifthefollowingrequisitesconcur:(1)thereismorethanonecircumstance,(2)thefactsfrom
whichtheinferencesarederivedareproven,and(3)thecombinationofallthecircumstancesissuchastoproduce
aconvictionbeyondreasonabledoubt.20Thecorollaryruleisthatthecircumstancesestablishedmustconstitutean
unbrokenchainwhichleadstoonefairandreasonableconclusionpointingtotheaccused,totheexclusionofall
others,astheguiltyperson.21
Intheinstantcase,thefollowingfactswereestablishedinthetrialcourt,whichtheCAlateraffirmed:
1)Petitionerwastheaccountantofthecooperative.Shehadcustodyofthecooperative'scheckswhichwere
presigned by its Manager and Chairman of the Board of Directors. She was likewise in charge of cash in
bank. She had custody of the documents pertaining to the withdrawal of the cooperative's deposits with its
depositorybanks.
2)Petitionercompletedsaidchecksbyfillinginallthedetailsinclusiveofthedate,nameofpayeeandthe
amountofthecheckinwordsandinfiguresbutexclusiveofthesignatures.
3) From November 18, 1996 to January 6, 1997, she acted as cashier when Teresita Gonzales was on
maternity leave and acted as teller from January 1330, 1997 when Flordeliza Ocampo went into her
honeymoon.Shethen,onbothoccasions,hadcompleteaccesstothecashvaultsandfilingcabinetsofthe
cooperativewhereitsdocumentswerekept.
4)PetitionerpreparedacertificationthattheamountofPhp9,653,527.06representedthetotalcashbalance
ofthecooperativeitsdepositorybanksasofMarch11,1997.Uponactualverification,itwasshownthatthe
totalcashbalancewasonlyPhp3,637,442.80,indicatingthattherewasadifferenceofPhp6,016,084.25and
thelossofwhichwereunexplained.
5)PetitioneradmittedinalettertoherfatherthatshewithdrewPhp200,000fromhisaccountandPhp20,000
fromhersisterinlaw'saccountinthecooperative.
6)PetitionerdepositedPhp1,050,000andPhp250,000toheraccountwithPCIBankonAugust13,1996and
May28,1996,respectively.
7)PetitionerstoppedreportingforworksinceMarch12,1997.22
Inviewoftheforegoingcircumstancesandbasedonrecords,suchcreatedanunbrokenchainwhichleadstoone
fairandreasonableconclusionpointingtothepetitioner,totheexclusionofallothers,astheguiltyperson.
Petitioner then insists that the proof adduced plausibly indicates commission of estafa and not qualified theft.
Petitioner argued that if the thing is not taken away, but received and then appropriated or converted without the
consent of the owner, the crime committed is estafa.23 This Court is not persuaded by her argument. One of the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/apr2015/gr_176114_2015.html

3/7

10/29/2016

G.R. No. 176114

elementsofestafa withabuseofconfidenceisthatthemoney,goodsorotherpersonalpropertybereceivedby
the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to
makedeliveryof,ortoreturn,thesame.Whenthethingisreceivedbytheoffenderfromtheoffendedpartyintrust
or in commission or for administration, the offender acquires both material or physical possession and juridical
possessionofthethingreceived.25
Juridicalpossessionmeansapossessionwhichgivesthetransfereearightoverthethingtransferredandthishe
maysetupevenagainsttheowner.26Itwasestablishedinthetrialthatpetitionerneverreceivedthesumofmoney
in trust, or on commission or for administration. Correa outlined the procedure followed by the cooperative in the
depositofitsfundswiththecooperative'sdepositorybanks,thus:
A: There were cash summarized for the day and the checks collected during the day for the different depository
banks are summarized and prepared by Grace San Diego and this(sic) were being brought to the different
depositorybanksandsentthroughourliaisonofficeMr.AlGonzales.27
xxx
Whenaskedhowsaidfundswerewithdrawnfromsaidbanksbythecooperative,Correaanswered:
A: Normally, withdrawals are made by checks and if there are no cleared checks in the bank the accountant
becausesheknewthecashpositioninthebankifthereisaneedofcash,acheckisconvertedintocashinthe
depositorybankandsentthroughtheliaisonofficerandhandedtothechiefaccountantbecauseshewastheone
responsible.28
xxx
Astohowcheckswerepreparedasfaraswithdrawalswereconcernedwas,Correa'sanswerwas:
A: Because we havesomanythings todo, we were busy we were preoccupied, we preparedset of blank check
resignedandweentrustedthistoMs.GraceSanDiegoandshefilledupthechecksparticularlythedate,thewords,
theamountinwordsandinfigurenumbers,sir.29Clearly,theabovetestimoniesshowthatpetitionerdidnothave
juridicalpossessionofthesumofmoney.Shedidnothavetherightoverthesumofmoneyshemayhavereceived
in the course of her functions as accountant, teller and cashier of the cooperative. The CA was correct when it
describedthepossessionofthepetitionerwasakintothatofareceivingtelleroffundsreceivedfromthirdpersons
paidtothebank.Paymentbythirdpersonstothetellerispaymenttothebankitselfthetellerisamerecustodianor
keeperofthefundsreceived,andhasnoindependent,autonomousrighttoretainthemoneyorgoodsreceivedin
consequenceoftheagency,aswhentheprincipalfailstoreimbursehimforadvanceshehasmade,andindemnify
himfordamagessufferedwithouthisfault.30
Anent the issue of penalty, the penalty for the crime of qualified theft based on Article 310 of the Revised Penal
Code(RPC)isthepenaltynexthigherbytwo(2)degreesthanthoserespectivelyspecifiedinArticle309oftheRPC,
thus:
Thepenaltyofprisionmayorinitsminimumandmediumperiods,ifthevalueofthethingstolenismorethan12,000
pesosbutdoesnotexceed22,000pesosbutifthevalueofthethingstolenexceedsthelatteramount,thepenalty
shallbethemaximumperiodoftheoneprescribedinthisparagraph,andoneyearforeachadditionaltenthousand
pesos, but the total of the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in
connectionwiththeaccessorypenaltieswhichmaybeimposedandforthepurposeoftheotherprovisionsofthis
Code,thepenaltyshallbetermedprisionmayororreclusiontemporal,asthecasemaybe.Fromtheprovisionsof
Articles309and310oftheRPC,thepenaltythatistwo(2)degreeshigherthanprisionmayorinitsminimumand
medium periods is reclusion temporalin its medium and maximum periods. In view, however, of the incremental
penaltyinsimpletheftunderArticle309oftheRPC,whichislikewiseapplicabletothecrimeofqualifiedtheft,when
thevalueofthethingstolenismorethanP22,000.00,thepenaltyshallbeimposedinitsmaximumperiodwithan
additionalperiodofone(1)yearforeveryP10,000.00inexcessofP22,000.00.Inthecaseatbar,thevalueofthe
propertystolenasdeterminedbytheRTCandmodifiedbytheCAisP2,080,000.00.DeductingP22,000.00tothe
amount, the difference of P2,058,000.00 will then be divided by P10,000.00, disregarding any amount less than
P10,000.00,wewillhavetwohundredfive(205).Thus,205yearsistheincrementalpenalty.Sincetheimposable
penaltyforqualifiedtheftisreclusiontemporalinitsmediumandmaximumperiodstobeimposedinitsmaximum
periodwhichiseighteen(18)years,two(2)months,andtwentyone(21)daystotwenty(20)years,ifweaddthe
incrementalpenaltyoftwohundredfive(205)years,thentherangeofthepenaltyistwohundredtwentythree(223)
years, two (2) months, and twentyone (21) days to two hundred twentyfive (225) years. However, such penalty
cannot be imposed because the maximum penalty that can be imposed is only up to 40 years, which is the
maximumperiodofreclusionperpetua.
Unlike in Simple Theft where the maximum penalty cannot exceed twenty (20) years, in Qualified Theft such
limitationdoesnotexist. Nonetheless,inasmuchasthepenaltyimposableinthecaseatbarexceedstwenty(20)
years,logically,thepenaltythatshouldbeimposedisreclusionperpetua,whichisthepenaltyonedegreehigher
1wphi1

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/apr2015/gr_176114_2015.html

4/7

10/29/2016

G.R. No. 176114

thanreclusiontemporal.
ThereisnowaneedtomodifythepenaltyimposedbythelowercourtandaffirmedbytheCA.Verily,theproper
penalty imposable is, thus, the penalty of reclusion perpetua, but it was incorrect for the R TC to sentence the
accusedtothepenaltyofreclusionperpetuaforforty(40)yearswithoutpardonbecausethatwouldbealimitation
on the part of the power of the Chief Executive. The exercise of the pardoning power is discretionary in the
Presidentandmaynotbecontrolledbythelegislatureorreversedbythecourt,saveonlywhenitcontravenesthe
limitationssetforthbytheConstitution.31Interestattherateofsixpercent(6%)perannumislikewiseimposedfrom
dateoffinalityofthisDecisionuntilfullpaymentpursuanttoNacarv.GalleryFrames.32
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Consequently, the Decision and Resolution, dated March 6, 2006 and
December14,2006,respectively,oftheCourtofAppealsaffirmingwithmodificationtheDecisiondatedAugust20,
2001oftheRegionalTrialCourtofMalolos,Bulacan,Branch17,findingpetitionerguiltybeyondreasonabledoubt
of the crime of qualified theft under Article 310, in connection with Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, are
herebyAFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATION.PetitionerGraceSanDiegoyTrinidadissentencedtoreclusionperpetua,
with all its accessory penalties. and to indemnify the Obando Fisherman's MultiPurpose Cooperative, Inc. in the
amountofPhp2,080,000.00,plusinterestattherateofsixpercent(6%)perannumfromfinalityofjudgmentuntilfull
satisfaction:
SOORDERED.
DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO*
AssociateJustice

BIENVENIDOL.REYES
AssociateJustice

FRANCISH.JARDELEZA
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION
IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassigned
tothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
*

DesignatedActingMember,perSpecialOrderNo.1958datedMarch23,2015.

PennedbyAssociateJusticeArcangelitaM.RomillaLontok,withAssociateJusticesMarinaL.Busonand
MartinS.Villarama,Jr.(nowamemberofthisCourt),concurringrollo,pp.2253.
2

Id.at6356.

PennedbyPresidingJudgeTeresitaV.DiazBaldosid.at86110.

CADecisionp.6,rollop.27.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/apr2015/gr_176114_2015.html

5/7

10/29/2016

G.R. No. 176114

TSN,November17,1998,pp.1112

Art.308.Whoareliablefortheft.Theftiscommittedbyanypersonwho,withintenttogainbutwithout
violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another
withoutthelatter'sconsent.
Art. 310. Qualified theft. The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two
degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic
servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or
large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a
fishpond or fishery, or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic
erruption,oranyothercalamity,vehicularaccidentorcivildisturbance.
7

Rollo,p.86.

TSN,June22,2000,p.20.

Rollop.110.

10

G.R.Nos.14767887,July7,2004,433SCRA640.

11

CADecision,p.31,rollop.52.

12

Libuitv.People,506Phil.591,599(2005).

13

Rollo,p.8.

14

TSN,April28,1998,p.18.

15

TSN,June22,2000,p.15.

16

CADecision,pp.2324rollo,pp.4445

17

TSN,July27,2000,pp910

18

346Phil.772,779(1997).

19

Peoplev.Danao,313Phil.178,184(1995),citingPeoplev.Desalisa,G.R.No.95262,January4,1994,
229SCRA35.
20

Id.,citingPeoplev.Sunga,etal.,G.R.No.106096,November22,1994,238SCRA274.

21

Id., citing People v. Genobia, et al., G.R. No. 110058, August 3, 1994, 234 SCRA 699 People v.
Estrellanes,Jr.,etal.,G.R.No.111003,December15,1994,239SCRA235.
22

CADecision,pp.2627rollo,pp.4748.

23

Citing People v. Nieves De Vera, 43 Phil. 1000, 1004 (1922) People v. Jaranilla, G.R. No. L28547,
February22,1974,55SCRA563.
24

Art.315Swindling(estafa)Anypersonwhoshalldefraudanotherbyanyofthemeansmentionedherein
belowshallbepunishedby:
xxxx1.Withunfaithfulnessorabuseofconfidence,namely:
x x x (b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other
personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under
any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such
obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond or by denying having received such money,
goods,orotherproperty.
25

Reyes,TheRevisedPenalCode,2008ed.,BookTwo,p.781.

26

Id.

27

TSN,August25,1998,p.20.

28

CADecision,p.8rollo,p.29.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/apr2015/gr_176114_2015.html

6/7

10/29/2016

G.R. No. 176114

TSN,August25,1998,p.21.

30

CitingGuzmanvs.CA,99Phil.704,707(1956),citingArticle1915,NewCivilCode.

31

Cruz,PhilippinePoliticalLaw,2002ed.,p.230.

32

G.R.No.189871,August13,2013,703SCRA439.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/apr2015/gr_176114_2015.html

7/7