ANICIA S. LIBUNAO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Libunao versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of Anicia Libunao against the People of the Philippines. The petitioner was the cashier and over-all in charge of the San Miguel, Bulacan branch of Baliuag Marketing Company, a corporation selling agricultural and chemical products. She was charged with Estafa through misappropriation under the Revised Penal Code for failing to remit to her employer the payments she collected from customers. The case matters because the Supreme Court draws the line between material and juridical possession — the distinction that decides whether a dishonest employee is guilty of Estafa or of Theft — and because it shows that an accused may be convicted of a crime different from that named in the Information, so long as the facts alleged describe it.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 14, after trial, found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced her accordingly. The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The petitioner then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court through a Petition for Review on Certiorari. The Supreme Court denied the petition but modified the judgment, convicting her instead of Theft under Article 308 in relation to Article 309(3) of the Revised Penal Code.

Facts

Baliuag Marketing operated a branch in San Miguel, Bulacan, where the petitioner served as over-all in charge, handling both sales and collections. From April 1994 to October 1995, the branch incurred sales losses and missing merchandise. Baliuag conducted sales and stock inventories and discovered falsified receipts, falsified sales invoices, and unreported sales.

The bookkeeper, Helen Macasadia, checked the petitioner's sales reports and identified several invoices whose amounts were never remitted. Customers were confronted with the invoices and several of them testified that they had already paid the petitioner, some showing official receipts, yet the payments never reached Baliuag. When confronted with the discrepancies, the petitioner failed to explain, and before the criminal complaint was filed she made a partial payment of 110,000 pesos.

For her part, the petitioner claimed the charges were harassment because she had earlier filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. She admitted preparing the sales invoices but denied participating in the delivery of the goods or in the payments, and claimed that whatever payments she received were deposited with Baliuag. She admitted that she was asked to account for the unremitted amounts but made no explanation because the store records were no longer with her.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether or not the petitioner, having only material possession of the money she collected for her employer, may instead be convicted of Theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.

Applicable Provisions

Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, the provision under which the petitioner was charged, provides:

Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by: 1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely: (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, or other property.

This is the crime charged, and its requirement that the offender receive the property in trust or under an obligation to return it is the very element the Court finds missing.

Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code defines theft:

Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent.

This is the crime the Court holds the petitioner actually committed, because her taking of the collections was without the consent of the owner.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioner did not acquire juridical possession of the money she misappropriated. Estafa through misappropriation requires that the offender had both material and juridical possession of the thing received. Juridical possession is possession that gives the transferee a right over the thing which he may set up even against the owner. The Court quoted its earlier ruling:

It bears to stress that a sum of money received by an employee on behalf of an employer is considered to be only in the material possession of the employee. The material possession of an employee is adjunct, by reason of his employment, to a recognition of the juridical possession of the employer. So long as the juridical possession of the thing appropriated did not pass to the employee-perpetrator, the offense committed remains to be theft, qualified or otherwise. Hence, conversion of personal property in the case of an employee having mere material possession of the said property constitutes theft, whereas in the case of an agent to whom both material and juridical possession have been transferred, misappropriation of the same property constitutes Estafa.

Since the petitioner received the payments as a cashier on behalf of Baliuag, she had only material possession, akin to a bank teller who has no juridical possession over the missing funds. She therefore cannot be convicted of Estafa through misappropriation.

On the second issue, the Court held that she may nevertheless be convicted of simple theft. What controls is not the designation of the offense but the description thereof as alleged in the Information, and the Information sufficiently alleged all the elements of theft. She was an accountable officer, so her taking could be characterized as taking with grave abuse of confidence, but since that qualifying circumstance was not alleged in the Information, she can only be held guilty of simple theft. Applying Article 309(3) as amended, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court fixed the penalty at six months of arresto mayor as minimum to two years of prision correccional as maximum. As the Information charged 304,040 pesos and the prosecution did not amend it, and deducting the partial payment of 110,000 pesos, her civil liability was fixed at 194,040 pesos.

Doctrine

For a Bar answer, retain these rules. First, the elements of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) are: that money or property is received in trust, on commission, for administration, or under an obligation to deliver or return; that there is misappropriation or conversion or a denial of receipt; that it is to the prejudice of another; and that there is a demand by the offended party. Second, the offender must have both material and juridical possession; an employee who receives money on behalf of the employer has only material possession, so conversion by that employee is theft, not Estafa. Third, what controls is not the designation of the offense but the description in the Information, so an accused may be convicted of theft even when charged with Estafa, provided the facts alleged make out theft.

Disposition

The petition was denied, but the judgment was modified: the petitioner was found guilty of Theft under Article 308 in relation to Article 309(3) of the Revised Penal Code, sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to two years of prision correccional as maximum, and ordered to pay Baliuag Marketing 194,040 pesos plus six percent legal interest from finality until full payment.

Remember This

Memorize this line: an employee who receives money for the employer has only material possession, so misappropriation by that employee is theft, not Estafa. Examiners use this case to test the material versus juridical possession distinction and the rule that the Information's description, not its designation, controls the conviction.