G.R. No. 210318. July 28, 2020 (Case Brief / Digest)

### Title
**Janice Reside y Tan v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 208131)**

### Facts
Petitioner Janice Reside y Tan (petitioner) was charged with the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b), of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

1. **Employment and Alleged Misappropriation (2001-2005):**
– From 2001 to 2005, petitioner served as the pre-school and grade school principal at Treasury of the Golden Word School, Inc. (TGWSI), entrusted with collecting tuition fees.
– Carmelita C. De Dios (De Dios), President of TGWSI, discovered that petitioner stopped reporting to work, prompting a review of the school’s books in 2005.
– De Dios, with Treasurer Marie Gil Padilla (Padilla), found non-remittance of tuition fees, revealing discrepancies in receipts managed by petitioner.

2. **Initial Investigations and Admissions:**
– A confrontation at the barangay hall occurred, where petitioner admitted to allegations and signed a promissory note to settle the owed amount within three months.
– Failing to pay, De Dios filed a criminal complaint for estafa.

3. **Trial at Regional Trial Court (RTC):**
– In Criminal Case No. 06-0052, petitioner pleaded “not guilty.”
– The RTC reviewed evidence, including official and temporary receipts, concluding petitioner misappropriated P1,721,010.82, with unremitted funds leading to her conviction of estafa.

4. **Court of Appeals (CA) Proceedings:**
– Petitioner appealed to the CA, which affirmed her guilt but modified the misappropriated amount to P134,462.90 based on documentary evidence.
– Resulting in modified penalties of imprisonment and indemnification amounts.

5. **Supreme Court Proceedings:**
– Petitioner advanced to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, challenging the CA’s decisions.

### Issues
1. **Whether the prosecution sufficiently established all elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the RPC.**
2. **Determination of the correct criminal liability – whether the petitioner should be convicted for qualified theft instead of estafa.**

### Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court found procedural and substantive missteps in the conviction under estafa, determining the correct conviction to be for qualified theft due to the absence of juridical possession.

**1. Elements of Estafa Not Met:**
– The RTC and CA incorrectly affirmed elements of estafa. The essential elements, particularly juridical possession, were lacking. Without juridical possession (only material possession), the offense transitions into theft.

**2. Conviction for Qualified Theft:**
– Given the indicated facts of material possession and entrusted fiduciary duties breached by petitioner as an employee, the offense correctly aligns with qualified theft under Articles 308 and 310 of the RPC.
– Elements validated included unauthorized taking with intent to gain, absence of consent, and action under grave abuse of confidence as the principal.

**3. Amendment of Penalty:**
– The Court re-assessed penalties per R.A. No. 10951, adjusting imprisonment terms to 5 years, 5 months, and 11 days (minimum) to 9 years, 4 months, and 1 day (maximum), alongside restitutional damages inclusive of legal interests at 6% per annum from the judgment finality until full payment.

### Doctrine
1. **Estafa vs. Qualified Theft:**
– Establishes the distinction between material and juridical possession in determining liability for estafa or theft.
– Reiterates that material possession of an employee over employer’s property aligns misappropriation with theft, not estafa, due to lack of juridical possession.

### Class Notes
**Key Legal Concepts:**
1. *Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) RPC*:
– Juridical possession
– Misappropriation or conversion of received money
– Prejudice to another
– Demand by the offended party

2. *Qualified Theft (Articles 308 and 310 RPC)*:
– Unauthorized taking of personal property
– Property belongs to another
– Lack of owner’s consent
– Intent to gain
– Lack of violence/intimidation or force
– Exploitation of a relationship of trust/confidence

**Critical Statutory Provision:**
– **Article 315 RPC**: Elements for estafa.
– **Articles 308 & 310 RPC**: Differentiation and penalty for qualified theft.

Applied by clarifying juridical possession.

### Historical Background
This decision arises in the context of evolving interpretations of possession in Philippine law, where the demarcation between estafa and theft remains pivotal in aligning charges with the rightful statutory framework. The reaffirmation of distinguishment between different possession forms aligns modern legal interpretations with foundational legal doctrines established in early jurisprudence.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Apply Filters