Patula Digest

8/12/2019 Patula Digest

1/4

[G.R. No. 164457 : April 11, 2012]

ANNA LERIMA PATULA, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE O! T"E P"ILIPPINE, REPON#ENT.

# E $ I I O NA%&'(')'%&*

Petitioner was charged with estafaunder an information filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Dumaguete Citythat averred:

That the said accused, being then a saleswoman of Footlucer!s Chain of "tores, #nc$, Dumaguete City, havingcollected and received the total sum of P%&%,'$*+ from several customers of said comany under the e-ressobligation to account for the roceeds of the sales and deliver the collection to the said comany, but far fromcomlying with her obligation and after a reasonable eriod of time desite reeated demands therefore, and withintent to defraud the said comany, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously fail to deliver the saidcollection to the said comany but instead, did, then and there willfully unlawfully and feloniously misaroriate,misaly and convert the roceeds of the sale to her own use and benefit, to the damage and re.udice of the saidcomany 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!sChain of "tores, #nc$ (Footlucer!s) in Dumaguete City since 5ctober , %**67 that etitioner was an emloyee ofFootlucer!s, starting as a saleslady in %** until she became a sales reresentative7 that as a salesreresentative she was authori8ed to tae orders from wholesale customers coming from different towns (lie9acong, amboanguita, ;alencia, 3umbangan and uested her toaudit etitioner after some customers had told him that they had already aid their accounts but the office ledgerhad still reflected outstanding balances for them7 that she first conducted her audit by going to the customers inlaces from


2/4

The Prosecution then formally offered its documentary e-hibits, including -hibits 9 to GG and their derivatives(lie the originals and dulicates of the receits suosedly e-ecuted and issued by etitioner), inclusive, theconfirmation sheets used by 4uivencan in auditing the accounts served by etitioner, and 4uivencan!s soAcalled"ummary (Final Reort) of Discreancies$ 102

I**+'*

%$ Hhether or not the ledgers and receits (-hibits 9 to GG, and their derivatives, inclusive) were admissibleas evidence of etitioner!s guilt for estafaas charged desite their not being duly authenticated7and

'$ Hhether or not 4uivencan!s testimony on the ledgers and receits (-hibits 9 to GG, and their derivatives,inclusive) to rove etitioner!s misaroriation or conversion was in admissible for being hearsay$

R+li%

IIIL-( o/ &'ir prop'r -+&'%&i(-&io% r'%)'r')

Eii&* 3 &o -%) &'ir )'ri-&i'*i%-)i**il' -* +)i(i-l 'i)'%('

Petitioner also contends that the RTC grossly erred in admitting as evidence -hibits 9 to GG, and their derivatives,inclusive, desite 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 Courtdistinguishes between a ublic document and a rivate document forthe urose of their resentation in evidence, viz:

"ection %*$ Classes of documents.I !or &' p+rpo*' o/ &'ir pr'*'%&-&io% i% 'i)'%(', )o(+'%&* -r' 'i&'rp+li( or pri-&'.

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 Philiines, or of a foreign country7

(b) Documents acnowledged before a notary ublic e-cet last wills and testaments, and

(c) Public records, et in the Philiines, 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 evidencein court$ / ublic document, by virtue of its official or sovereign character, or because it has been acnowledgedbefore a notary ublic (e-cet a notarial will) or a cometent ublic official with the formalities re>uired by law, orbecause it is a ublic record of a rivate writing authori8ed by law, is selfAauthenticating and re>uires no furtherauthentication 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 legallyauthori8ed by which some disosition or agreement is roved or set forth$ 3acing the official or sovereigncharacter of a ublic document, or the solemnities rescribed by law, a rivate document re>uires authentication inthe manner allowed by law or the Rules of Courtbefore its accetance as evidence in court$ The re>uirement ofauthentication of a rivate document is e-cused only in four instances, secifically: (a) when the document is anancient one within the conte-t of "ection '%, 1'2Rule %&' of the Rules of Court; (b) when the genuineness andauthenticity of an actionable document have not been secifically denied under oath by the adverse arty7 1'*2(c)when the genuineness and authenticity of the document have been admitted7 1&@2or (d) when the document is notbeing offered as genuine$1&%2

There is no >uestion that -hibits 9 to GG and their derivatives were rivate documents because rivate individualse-ecuted or generated them for rivate or business uroses or uses$ Considering that none of the e-hibits cameunder any of the four e-cetions, 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 theRules of Court,viz:

2


3/4

"ection '@$Proof of private documents$ I 3'/or' -%8 pri-&' )o(+'%& offered as authentic i* r'('i') i%'i)'%(', its due ''(+&io% -%) -+&'%&i(i&8 +*& ' pro')either:

(a) 9y -%8o%' 9o *-9 &' )o(+'%& ''(+&') or 9ri&&'%7 or

(b) 9y 'i)'%(' o/ &' '%+i%'%'** o/ &' *i%-&+r' or -%)9ri&i% of the maer$

/ny other rivate document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be$

The Prosecution attemted to have 4o authenticate the signature of etitioner in various receits, to wit:

/s the e-certs indicate, 4o!s attemt at authentication of the signature of etitioner on the receit with serialnumber F3DT* =o$ '@66% (a document that was mared as -hibit /, while the urorted signature of etitionerthereon was mared as -hibit /A%) immediately fi88led out after the Prosecution admitted that the document wasa mere machine copy, not the original$ Thereafter, as if to soften its failed attemt, the Prosecution e-resslyromised to roduce at a later date the originals of the receit with serial number F3DT* =o$ '@66% and otherreceits$ 9ut that romise was not even true, because almost in the same breath the Prosecution offered toauthenticate the signature of etitioner on the receits through a different witness(though then still unnamed)$ /smatters turned out in the end, the effort to have 4o authenticate both the machine copy of the receit with serialnumber F3DT* =o$ '@66% and the signature of etitioner on that receit was wasteful because the machine coywas ine-licably forgotten and was no longer even included in the Prosecution!s 5ffer of Documentary vidence$

#t is true that the original of the receit bearing serial number F3DT* =o$ '@66%was subse>uently resented as-hibit 9 through 4uivencan$ Jowever, the Prosecution did not establish that the signature aearing on -hibit 9was the same signature that 4o had earlier sought to identify to be the signature of etitioner (-hibit /A%) on themachine coy (-hibit /)$ This is borne out by the fact that the Prosecution abandoned -hibit / as the maringnomenclature for the machine coy of the receit bearing serial number F3DT* =o$ '@66% for all intents anduroses of this case, and used the same nomenclature to refer instead to an entirely different document entitledB3ist of Customers covered by /=/ 3R#


4/4

8 &' 9i&%'** or &' (o+r&, 9i& 9ri&i%* -)i&&') or &r'-&') -* '%+i%' by the arty against whom theevidence is offered, or pro') &o ' '%+i%'to the satisfaction of the .udge$ (mhases sulied)

#f it is already clear that 4o and 4uivencan had not themselves seen the e-ecution or signing of the documents,theProsecution surely did not authenticate -hibits 9 to GG and their derivatives conformably with the afore>uotedrules$ Jence, -hibits 9 to GG, and their derivatives, inclusive, were inescaably bereft of robative value asevidence$ That was the only fair and .ust result, as the Court held in Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Philippine ailsand !ires Corporation"1&2

That the Prosecution!s evidence was left uncontested because etitioner decided not to sub.ect 4uivencan tocrossAe-amination, and did not tender her contrary evidence was inconse>uential$ /lthough the trial court hadoverruled 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 flawsof the Prosecution!s evidence were fundamental and substantive, not merely technical and rocedural, and weredefects that the adverse arty!s waiver of her crossAe-amination or failure to rebut could not set right or cure$ =ordid the trial court!s overruling of etitioner!s ob.ections imbue the flawed evidence with any virtue and value$

Curiously, the RTC e-ceted the entries in the ledgers from the alication of the hearsay rule by also terselystating that the ledgers Bwere reared in the regular course of business$ 16@2"eemingly, the RTC alied "ection6&, Rule %&@ of the Rules of Court,to wit:

"ection 6&$ #ntries in the course of $usiness.I ntries made at, or near the time of the transactions to which theyrefer, by a erson deceased, or unable to testify, who was in a osition to now the facts therein stated, may bereceived asprima facieevidence, if such erson made the entries in his rofessional caacity or in theerformance of duty and in the ordinary or regular course of business or duty$

This was another grave error of the RTC$The terse yet sweeing manner of .ustifying the alication of "ection 6&was unaccetable due to the need to show the concurrence of the severalre>uisites before entries in the course ofbusiness could be e-ceted from the hearsay rule$ 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 caacity 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 Courtreiterates that in the trial of every criminal case, a .udge must rigidly test the "tate!s evidence of guilt in order toensure that such evidence adhered to the basic rules of admissibility before ronouncing an accused guilty of thecrime charged uon such evidence$ The failure of the .udge to do so herein nullified the guarantee of due ofrocess of law in favor of the accused, who had no obligation to rove her innocence$ Jer ac>uittal should follow$

IVNo r'li-l' 'i)'%(' o% )--'

Conformably with finding the evidence of guilt unreliable, the Court declares that the disposition by the RTC orderingpetitioner to indemnify Footluckers in the amount of !131,2"#$%2 with interest of 12&per annumuntil 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 declaredas without pre*udice to the filing of a civil action against her for the recovery of any amount that she may still owe toFootluckers$cralaw

WHEREFORE, the Court SETS ASIDE AND REVERSESthe decision convicting ANNA LERIMA PATULAof estafaascharged, and ACQUITSher 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.

.