G.R. No. 205144 November 26, 2014
MARGIE BALERTA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Margie Balerta was a cashier of the Balasan Associated Barangays Multi-Purpose Cooperative (BABMPC). An Information dated October 27, 1999, charged her with Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. It alleged that from May 31 to June 17, 1999, she misappropriated and converted to her personal use the total collection of ₱185,584.06 entrusted to her, failing to liquidate or return the amount despite demands.
During pre-trial, the parties stipulated on: (a) the existence of BABMPC; (b) petitioner’s identity and position as cashier; (c) that petitioner could not withdraw from the cooperative’s bank account alone; and (d) the complaint was based on findings of an internal auditor, not an independent accountant.
At trial, the prosecution presented only BABMPC Manager Napoleon Timonera. He testified that petitioner handled daily remittances, deposits, withdrawals, and loans, particularly for a Care Philippines account. Discrepancies were discovered after BABMPC’s bookkeeper found a ₱40.00 variance between the passbook and deposit slip. An internal audit by Ruben Ambros revealed that petitioner had declared the cooperative’s passbook missing in March 1999, obtained a new one on May 6, 1999, but kept the old passbook and made falsified entries in it to conceal shortages. Bank records disowned entries and signatures in the old passbook from March 12 to June 15, 1999. The audit showed a total discrepancy of about ₱185,000.00. Timonera stated that letters were sent to petitioner demanding explanation and payment, but she refused to receive them. He also testified that petitioner’s office drawers were opened using duplicate keys, a common practice between her and the bookkeeper.
The defense presented petitioner, who testified that she last reported for work on June 17, 1999, after which she fell ill. She claimed Timonera was angered when she reminded him of his excessive cash advances. She reported to the office on June 25, 1999, after receiving a letter, and was shown an audit result indicating an ₱80,000.00 shortage, but was not furnished a copy. She protested the audit conducted in her absence. She reported to police that her drawers were forcibly opened on June 25, 1999, and ₱5,000.00 was missing. She alleged Timonera filed the case to evade his financial liabilities and because she planned to go abroad. She admitted being aware of a past monthly audit shortage of ₱1,896.00, which remained unsettled.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted petitioner of Estafa, sentencing her to imprisonment and ordering her to pay ₱185,584.06. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all elements of Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code, particularly the element of misappropriation or conversion.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court REVERSED the CA Decision and ACQUITTED petitioner Margie Balerta of Estafa. The directive to pay ₱185,584.06 as civil liability was also SET ASIDE for lack of basis.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. For Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) to stand, the following elements must concur: (1) that money, goods, or other personal property is 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; (2) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender.
The evidence was insufficient to prove the second element—misappropriation or conversion. The prosecution’s sole witness, Timonera, was not present during the audit and had no personal knowledge of the alleged shortage. He admitted he was not an accountant and that the internal auditor, Ambros, knew more about the discrepancies. However, Ambros did not testify, and no audit report or other documentary evidence was formally offered. The alleged audit findings remained hearsay. The prosecution did not present the cooperative’s ledger, cash books, or any receipt signed by petitioner acknowledging her accountability for the specific sum of ₱185,584.06. The mere fact of a shortage, without conclusive proof that petitioner personally misappropriated the funds, does not establish criminal liability. The presumption of innocence must prevail. The civil liability cannot stand as it arises from the same facts constituting the crime, which was not proven.