Patula v. People | GR No. 164457 | Ponente: Bersamin, J.

| April 11, 2012 | Sufficiency

of Complaint or Information/Elements or Contents of Complaint or Information
PETITIONERS: Anna Lerima Patula
RESPONDENTS: People of the Philippines

BUZZWORDS / PHRASES (change the table acc to the terms we need to remember)
Not necessary for elements not essential to the offense Estafa and Falsification as distinct and separate crimes
to be in the information

ANTECEDENT FACTS
● During the period of March 16 to 20, 1997, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, Anna
Patula, a saleswoman of Footlucker’s Chain of Stores, Inc. She collected and received
a total sum of P131,286.97 from several customers. However, after a reasonable
period of time and despite repeated demands, she failed to account the said amount
and misappropriated, misapply, and convert the same for her own use and benefit to
the damage of the said comapany.
● Petitioner pled not guilty to the offense charged in the information. Lambert Go, branch
manager of Footlucker’s in Dumaguete City testified that the petitioner was an
employee of the company since 1996 until she became a sales representative and
was authorized to take orders from wholesale customers and collect/receive
payments. Her sales were high at the start and subsequently decreased later on.
● Go sought Karen Guivencan, the company auditor, to subject Patula to an audit due to
claims by customers of having been fully paid although the balance appeared unpaid
on record.
● Guivencan submitted a written report which claims that the petitioner had
misappropriated the total amount of P131,286.92. 49. The ledgers were formally
offered to the RTC but the 50th could no longer be found.
● Petitioner’s counsel interposed a continuing objection on the ground that the figures
entered into in the ledgers and receipts were hearsay because the persons who made
the entries were not the persons themselves in court.
● After presenting documentary evidence, the prosecution rested its case.
Subsequently, the defense decided not to file a demurrer of evidence. The RTC found
petitioner guilty of estafa.
● The petitioner filed for a motion for reconsideration, but the RTC denied it.

CRIME: Art. 215 (1b) of the Revised Penal Code

RTC: An information was filed by the prosecution for the crime of Estafa.
Ruling: The RTC found the petitioner guilty of Estafa under Art. 315 (1b) of the Revised Penal
Code.
The RTC convicted Patula the crime of Estafa under Art. 315 (1b) of the RPC, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.

PROSECUTION DEFENSE
● ● Petitioner’s counsel interposed a
continuing objection on the ground
that the figures entered into in the
ledgers were hearsay because the
persons who made the entries were
not present in court.

CA: Motion for Reconsideration by defense/accused

Ruling: The Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE:
 W/N the failure of the information for estafa to allege falsification violated
petitioner’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation (IMPT);
NO
 W/N the ledgers and receipts were admissible as evidence despite not being
duly authenticated; NO
 W/N Guivencan’s testimony on the ledgers and receipts were inadmissible for
being hearsay. YES

RATIO
1st Issue (Syllabus Topic):
● Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court Sec. 8 and 9 contained the provisions on the
proper manner of alleging the nature and cause of the accusation. To convict an
accused of an offense other than that charged in the complaint or information
constitutes a violation of the Constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation.
● Patula committed the falsification in order to conceal her misappropriation or
conversion. Falsification was not a separate and distinct offense but an essential
element in establishing the one duly charged in the information against petitioner.
● In that manner her Constitutional right to be informed was not violated. The information
herein completely pleaded the estafa within the context of substantive law and the
rules. Falsification need not be alleged in the information because it is not an element
of estafa through misappropriation and conversion.
● Doctrine:
o An accused cannot be convicted of an offense that is not clearly charged in the
complaint or information. To convict him of an offense other than that charged
in the complaint or information would be violative of the Constitutional right to
 be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. 11 Indeed, the accused
cannot be convicted of a crime, even if duly proven, unless the crime is alleged
or necessarily included in the information led against him. (IMPT)
o Distinction should be made as to when the crimes of Estafa and Falsification
will constitute as one complex crime and when they are considered as two
separate offenses. The complex crime of Estafa Through Falsification of
Documents is committed when one has to falsify certain documents to be able
to obtain money or goods from another person. In other words, the falsification
is a necessary means of committing estafa. However, if the falsification is
committed to conceal the misappropriation, two separate offenses of estafa
and falsification are committed. (IMPT)
o The Prosecutor must rely on the strength of his own evidence than rely on the
weakness of the evidence presented by the defense. Absent any strong
evidence to establish that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt,
acquittal must follow.
2nd Issue:
● Section 36 of Rule 130, Rules of Court, states that a witness can testify only to those
facts that she knows of her personal knowledge. Personal knowledge of the witness is
a substantive requirement for accepting testimonial evidence that establishes the truth
of a disputed fact.
● Guivencan admitted having no personal knowledge of the amounts actually received
by petitioner from the customers or remitted by petitioner to Footlucker’s. This means
that other people, aside Guivencan, prepared the receipts and ledgers and that she
based her testimony on the entries found in them supposedly issued by the petitioner,
and the customers. Her being the lone witness denied the RTC and the defense the
opportunity to cross-examine, validate, and test the credibility of the customers and the
entries as evidence. This denial of that opportunity made the evidence presented as
hearsay, thus, unreliable and untrustworthy.
rd
3 Issue:
● The questioned receipts and ledgers were private documents issued by private
individuals for a private and business purpose and use. None of which came under the
4 exceptions of the Rules of Court for the excuse of authentication of private
documents: a. when the document is an ancient one, b. genuineness and authenticity
of an actionable document have not been denied under oath by the adverse party, c.
when the legitimacy and authenticity of the documents have been admitted, and d.
when the document is not being presented as genuine.
● The receipts and ledgers could not be presented and admitted as evidence against the
petitioner without the prosecution dutifully seeing to their authentication in the manner
provided under Sec. 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
● Go failed to prove the authentication of the documents for being mere machine copies
and thus could not prove the petitioner’s actual signature. Guivencan, on the other
hand, based her identification of the signature alone on the fact that it contained the
family name of Patula. Furthermore, she could not truthfully identify the signature
 because she lacked familiarity.
● Prosecution failed to authenticate the receipts and ledgers following the requirements
by the rules. Thus, the evidence was bereft of probative value.

The Court SETS Aside AND REVERSES the decision convicting ANNA LERIMA PATULA of
Estafa and ACQUITS her for failure of prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.