[G.R. No.

164457 : April 11, 2012]

ANNA LERIMA PATULA, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE O! T"E P"ILIPPINE, REPON#ENT.
# E $ I I O N
A%&'(')'%&*
Petitioner was charged with estafa under an information filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Dumaguete City
that averred:
That the said accused, being then a saleswoman of Footlucer!s Chain of "tores, #nc$, Dumaguete City, having
collected and received the total sum of P%&%,'()$*+ from several customers of said com,any under the e-,ress
obligation to account for the ,roceeds of the sales and deliver the collection to the said com,any, but far from
com,lying with her obligation and after a reasonable ,eriod of time des,ite re,eated demands therefore, and with
intent to defraud the said com,any, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously fail to deliver the said
collection to the said com,any but instead, did, then and there willfully unlawfully and feloniously misa,,ro,riate,
misa,,ly and convert the ,roceeds of the sale to her own use and benefit, to the damage and ,re.udice of the said
com,any in the aforesaid amount of P%&%,'()$*+$
Contrary to /rt$ &%0, ,ar % (b) of the Revised Penal Code$
1%2
The Prosecution!s first witness was 3amberto 4o, who testified that he was the branch manager of Footlucer!s
Chain of "tores, #nc$ (Footlucer!s) in Dumaguete City since 5ctober (, %**67 that ,etitioner was an em,loyee of
Footlucer!s, starting as a saleslady in %**) until she became a sales re,resentative7 that as a sales
re,resentative she was authori8ed to tae orders from wholesale customers coming from different towns (lie
9acong, :amboanguita, ;alencia, 3umbangan and <abinay in =egros 5riental, and "i>ui.or), and to collect
,ayments from them7 that she could issue and sign official recei,ts of Footlucer!s for the ,ayments, which she
would then remit7 that she would then submit the recei,ts for the ,ayments for tallying and reconciliation7 that at
first her volume of sales was >uite high, but later on dro,,ed, leading him to confront her7 that she res,onded that
business was slow7 that he summoned the accounting cler to verify7 that the accounting cler discovered erasures
on some collection recei,ts7 that he decided to sub.ect her to an audit by com,any auditor ?aren 4uivencan7 that
he learned from a customer of ,etitioner!s that the customer!s outstanding balance had already been fully ,aid
although that balance a,,eared un,aid in Footlucer!s records7 and that one night later on, ,etitioner and her
,arents went to his house to deny having misa,,ro,riated any money of Footlucer!s and to ,lead for him not to
,ush through with a case against her, ,romising to settle her account on a monthly basis7 and that she did not
settle after that, but sto,,ed re,orting to wor$
1'2
5n <arch +, '@@', 4o!s cross e-amination, reAdirect e-amination and reAcross e-amination were com,leted$
The only other witness for the Prosecution was ?aren 4uivencan, whom Footlucer!s em,loyed as its store auditor
since =ovember %), %**0 until her resignation on <arch &%, '@@%$ "he declared that 4o had re>uested her to
audit ,etitioner after some customers had told him that they had already ,aid their accounts but the office ledger
had still reflected outstanding balances for them7 that she first conducted her audit by going to the customers in
,laces from <abinay to :amboanguitain =egros 5riental, and then in "i>ui.or7 that she discovered in the course of
her audit that the amounts a,,earing on the original co,ies of recei,ts in the ,ossession of around 0@ customers
varied from the amounts written on the du,licate co,ies of the recei,ts ,etitioner submitted to the office7 that u,on
com,leting her audit, she submitted to 4o a written re,ort denominated as B3ist of Customers Covered by
"aleswoman 3CR#</ P/TD3/ wE Differences in Records as ,er /udit Duly ;erified <arch %)A'@, %**+F mared
as C-hibit /7 and that based on the re,ort, ,etitioner had misa,,ro,riated the total amount of P%&%,'()$*'$
1&2
During 4uivencan!s stint as a witness, the Prosecution mared the ledgers of ,etitioner!s various customers
allegedly with discre,ancies as C-hibits 9 to GG and their derivatives, inclusive$ Cach of the ledgers had a first
column that contained the dates of the entries, a second that identified the invoices by the number, a third that
stated the debit, a fourth that noted the credit (or the amounts ,aid), and a fifth that summed the balances (debit
minus credit)$ 5nly 6* of the ledgers were formally offered and admitted by the RTC because the 0@
th
ledger
could no longer be found$
#n the course of 4uivencan!s directAe-amination,,etitioner!s counsel inter,osed a continuing ob.ection n on the
ground that the figures entered in C-hibits 9 to GG and their derivatives, inclusive, were hearsay because the
,ersons who had made the entries were not themselves ,resented in court$
162
Hith that, ,etitioner!s counsel did not
anymore crossAe-amine 4uivencan, a,,arently regarding her testimony to be irrelevant because she thereby
tended to ,rove falsification, an offense not alleged in the information$
1
The Prosecution then formally offered its documentary e-hibits, including C-hibits 9 to GG and their derivatives
(lie the originals and du,licates of the recei,ts su,,osedly e-ecuted and issued by ,etitioner), inclusive, the
confirmation sheets used by 4uivencan in auditing the accounts served by ,etitioner, and 4uivencan!s soAcalled
"ummary (Final Re,ort) of Discre,ancies$
102
I**+'*
%$ Hhether or not the ledgers and recei,ts (C-hibits 9 to GG, and their derivatives, inclusive) were admissible
as evidence of ,etitioner!s guilt for estafa as charged des,ite their not being duly authenticated7and
'$ Hhether or not 4uivencan!s testimony on the ledgers and recei,ts (C-hibits 9 to GG, and their derivatives,
inclusive) to ,rove ,etitioner!s misa,,ro,riation or conversion was in admissible for being hearsay$
R+li%,
III
L-(. o/ &0'ir prop'r -+&0'%&i(-&io% r'%)'r')
E10i2i&* 3 &o 44 -%) &0'ir )'ri5-&i5'*
i%-)6i**i2l' -* 7+)i(i-l '5i)'%('
Petitioner also contends that the RTC grossly erred in admitting as evidence C-hibits 9 to GG, and their derivatives,
inclusive, des,ite their being ,rivate documents that were not duly authenticated as re>uired by "ection '@, Rule
%&' of the Rules of Court.
"ection %*, Rule %&' of the Rules of Court distinguishes between a ,ublic document and a ,rivate document for
the ,ur,ose of their ,resentation in evidence, viz:
"ection %*$ Classes of documents. I !or &0' p+rpo*' o/ &0'ir pr'*'%&-&io% i% '5i)'%(', )o(+6'%&* -r' 'i&0'r
p+2li( or pri5-&'.
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals,
and ,ublic officers, whether of the Phili,,ines, or of a foreign country7
(b) Documents acnowledged before a notary ,ublic e-ce,t last wills and testaments, and
(c) Public records, e,t in the Phili,,ines, of ,rivate documents re>uired by law to be entered therein$
/ll other writings are ,rivate$
The nature of documents as either ,ublic or ,rivate determines how the documents may be ,resented as evidence
in court$ / ,ublic document, by virtue of its official or sovereign character, or because it has been acnowledged
before a notary ,ublic (e-ce,t a notarial will) or a com,etent ,ublic official with the formalities re>uired by law, or
because it is a ,ublic record of a ,rivate writing authori8ed by law, is selfAauthenticating and re>uires no further
authentication in order to be ,resented as evidence in court$#n contrast, a ,rivate document is any other writing,
deed, or instrument e-ecuted by a ,rivate ,erson without the intervention of a notary or other ,erson legally
authori8ed by which some dis,osition or agreement is ,roved or set forth$ 3acing the official or sovereign
character of a ,ublic document, or the solemnities ,rescribed by law, a ,rivate document re>uires authentication in
the manner allowed by law or the Rules of Court before its acce,tance as evidence in court$ The re>uirement of
authentication of a ,rivate document is e-cused only in four instances, s,ecifically: (a) when the document is an
ancient one within the conte-t of "ection '%,
1'(2
Rule %&' of the Rules of Court; (b) when the genuineness and
authenticity of an actionable document have not been s,ecifically denied under oath by the adverse ,arty7
1'*2
(c)
when the genuineness and authenticity of the document have been admitted7
1&@2
or (d) when the document is not
being offered as genuine$
1&%2
There is no >uestion that C-hibits 9 to GG and their derivatives were ,rivate documents because ,rivate individuals
e-ecuted or generated them for ,rivate or business ,ur,oses or uses$ Considering that none of the e-hibits came
under any of the four e-ce,tions, they could not be ,resented and admitted as evidence against ,etitioner without
the Prosecution dutifully seeing to their authentication in the manner ,rovided in "ection'@ of Rule %&' of the
Rules of Court,viz:
2
"ection '@$ Proof of private documents$ I 3'/or' -%8 pri5-&' )o(+6'%& offered as authentic i* r'('i5') i%
'5i)'%(', its due '1'(+&io% -%) -+&0'%&i(i&8 6+*& 2' pro5') either:
(a) 9y -%8o%' 90o *-9 &0' )o(+6'%& '1'(+&') or 9ri&&'%7 or
(b) 9y '5i)'%(' o/ &0' ,'%+i%'%'** o/ &0' *i,%-&+r' or 0-%)9ri&i%, of the maer$
/ny other ,rivate document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be$
The Prosecution attem,ted to have 4o authenticate the signature of ,etitioner in various recei,ts, to wit:
/s the e-cer,ts indicate, 4o!s attem,t at authentication of the signature of ,etitioner on the recei,t with serial
number F3DT*) =o$ '@66% (a document that was mared as C-hibit /, while the ,ur,orted signature of ,etitioner
thereon was mared as C-hibit /A%) immediately fi88led out after the Prosecution admitted that the document was
a mere machine copy, not the original$ Thereafter, as if to soften its failed attem,t, the Prosecution e-,ressly
,romised to ,roduce at a later date the originals of the recei,t with serial number F3DT*) =o$ '@66% and other
recei,ts$ 9ut that ,romise was not even true, because almost in the same breath the Prosecution offered to
authenticate the signature of ,etitioner on the recei,ts through a different witness (though then still unnamed)$ /s
matters turned out in the end, the effort to have 4o authenticate both the machine copy of the recei,t with serial
number F3DT*) =o$ '@66% and the signature of ,etitioner on that recei,t was wasteful because the machine co,y
was ine-,licably forgotten and was no longer even included in the Prosecution!s 5ffer of Documentary Cvidence$
#t is true that the original of the recei,t bearing serial number F3DT*) =o$ '@66%was subse>uently ,resented as
C-hibit 9 through 4uivencan$ Jowever, the Prosecution did not establish that the signature a,,earing on C-hibit 9
was the same signature that 4o had earlier sought to identify to be the signature of ,etitioner (C-hibit /A%) on the
machine co,y (C-hibit /)$ This is borne out by the fact that the Prosecution abandoned C-hibit / as the maring
nomenclature for the machine co,y of the recei,t bearing serial number F3DT*) =o$ '@66% for all intents and
,ur,oses of this case, and used the same nomenclature to refer instead to an entirely different document entitled
B3ist of Customers covered by /=/ 3CR#</ P/TD3/ wEdifference in Records as ,er /udit duly verified <arch %)A
'@, %**+$F
#n her case, 4uivencan!s identification of ,etitioner!s signature on two recei,ts based alone on the fact that the
signatures contained the legible family name of Patula was ineffectual, and e-,osed yet another dee, flaw
infecting the documentary evidence against ,etitioner$ /,,arently, 4uivencan could not honestly identify
,etitioner!s signature on the recei,ts either because she laced familiarity with such signature, or because she had
not seen ,etitioner affi- her signature on the recei,ts, as the following e-cer,ts from her testimony bear out:
He also have similar im,ressions of lac of ,ro,er authentication as to the ledgers the Prosecution ,resented to
,rove the discre,ancies between the amounts ,etitioner had allegedly received from the customers and the
amounts she had actually remitted to Footlucer!s$ 4uivencan e-clusively relied on the entries of the
unauthenticated ledgers to su,,ort her audit re,ort on ,etitioner!s su,,osed misa,,ro,riation or conversion,
revealing her lac of inde,endent nowledge of the veracity of the entries, as the following e-cer,ts of her
testimony show:
#n the face of the ,al,able flaws infecting the Prosecution!s evidence, it should come as no sur,rise that
,etitioner!s counsel inter,osed timely ob.ections$ Get, the RTC mysteriously overruled the ob.ections and allowed
the Prosecution to ,resent the unauthenticated ledgers, as follows:
(Continuation of the Direct C-amination of
Hitness ?aren 4uivencan on "e,tember %%, '@@')
The mystery shrouding the RTC!s soft treatment of the Prosecution!s flawed ,resentation was avoidable sim,ly by
the RTC adhering to the instructions of the rules earlier >uoted, as well as with "ection '' of Rule %&' of the Rules
of Court,which contains instructions on how to ,rove the genuineness of a handwriting in a .udicial ,roceeding, as
follows:
"ection ''$ How genuineness of handwriting proved. I The handwriting of a ,erson may be ,roved by any witness
who believes it to be the handwriting of such ,erson because 0' 0-* *''% &0' p'r*o% 9ri&', or 0-* *''% 9ri&i%,
p+rpor&i%, &o 2' 0i* +po% 90i(0 &0' 9i&%'** 0-* -(&') or 2''% (0-r,'), and has thus ac>uired nowledge of
the handwriting of such ,erson$ Cvidence res,ecting the handwriting may also be given by - (o6p-ri*o%, 6-)'
3
28 &0' 9i&%'** or &0' (o+r&, 9i&0 9ri&i%,* -)6i&&') or &r'-&') -* ,'%+i%' by the ,arty against whom the
evidence is offered, or pro5') &o 2' ,'%+i%' to the satisfaction of the .udge$ (Cm,hases su,,lied)
#f it is already clear that 4o and 4uivencan had not themselves seen the e-ecution or signing of the documents,the
Prosecution surely did not authenticate C-hibits 9 to GG and their derivatives conformably with the afore>uoted
rules$ Jence, C-hibits 9 to GG, and their derivatives, inclusive, were inesca,ably bereft of ,robative value as
evidence$ That was the only fair and .ust result, as the Court held in Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Philippine ails
and !ires Corporation"
1&(2
That the Prosecution!s evidence was left uncontested because ,etitioner decided not to sub.ect 4uivencan to
crossAe-amination, and did not tender her contrary evidence was inconse>uential$ /lthough the trial court had
overruled the seasonable ob.ections to 4uivencan!s testimony by ,etitioner!s counsel due to the hearsay character,
it could not be denied that hearsay evidence, whether ob.ected to or not, had no ,robative value$
1&*2
;erily, the flaws
of the Prosecution!s evidence were fundamental and substantive, not merely technical and ,rocedural, and were
defects that the adverse ,arty!s waiver of her crossAe-amination or failure to rebut could not set right or cure$ =or
did the trial court!s overruling of ,etitioner!s ob.ections imbue the flawed evidence with any virtue and value$
Curiously, the RTC e-ce,ted the entries in the ledgers from the a,,lication of the hearsay rule by also tersely
stating that the ledgers Bwere ,re,ared in the regular course of business$F
16@2
"eemingly, the RTC a,,lied "ection
6&, Rule %&@ of the Rules of Court, to wit:
"ection 6&$ #ntries in the course of $usiness. I Cntries made at, or near the time of the transactions to which they
refer, by a ,erson deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a ,osition to now the facts therein stated, may be
received as prima facie evidence, if such ,erson made the entries in his ,rofessional ca,acity or in the
,erformance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty$
This was another grave error of the RTC$The terse yet swee,ing manner of .ustifying the a,,lication of "ection 6&
was unacce,table due to the need to show the concurrence of the several re>uisites before entries in the course of
business could be e-ce,ted from the hearsay rule$ The re>uisites are as follows:
%a& The ,erson who made the entry must be dead or unable to testify7
%$& The entries were made at or near the time of the transactions to which they refer7
%c& The entrant was in a ,osition to now the facts stated in the entries7
%d& The entries were made in his ,rofessional ca,acity or in the ,erformance of a duty, whether legal,
contractual, moral, or religious7
%e& The entries were made in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty$
16%2
The Court has to ac>uit ,etitioner for failure of the "tate to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt$ The Court
reiterates that in the trial of every criminal case, a .udge must rigidly test the "tate!s evidence of guilt in order to
ensure that such evidence adhered to the basic rules of admissibility before ,ronouncing an accused guilty of the
crime charged u,on such evidence$ The failure of the .udge to do so herein nullified the guarantee of due of
,rocess of law in favor of the accused, who had no obligation to ,rove her innocence$ Jer ac>uittal should follow$
IV
No r'li-2l' '5i)'%(' o% )-6-,'
Conformably with finding the evidence of guilt unreliable, the Court declares that the disposition by the RTC ordering
petitioner to indemnify Footluckers in the amount of !131,2"#$%2 with interest of 12& per annum until fully paid was not yet
shown to be factually founded$ 'et, she cannot now be absolved of civil liability on that basis$ (er ac)uittal has to be declared
as without pre*udice to the filing of a civil action against her for the recovery of any amount that she may still owe to
Footluckers$cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Court SETS ASIDE AND REVERSES the decision convicting ANNA LERIMA PATULA of estafa as
charged, and ACQUITS her for failure of the !rosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, without pre*udice to a
civil action brought against her for the recovery of any amount still owing in favor of Footluckers Chain of +tores, ,nc$
-o pronouncement on costs of suit$
SO ORDERED.
.