G.R. No. 109595; April 27, 2000
Cristeta Chua-Burce, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Cristeta Chua-Burce was the Cash Custodian of Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Calapan Branch. On August 16, 1985, a physical cash count of the bank vault revealed a shortage of P150,000.00. Subsequent investigations by bank management, internal auditors, and the National Bureau of Investigation concluded that the petitioner, as the accountable cash custodian, was primarily responsible for the missing funds. After failing to provide a satisfactory explanation, her employment was terminated.
The bank filed a civil case for sum of money against the petitioner. Subsequently, an Information for estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code was filed against her. The civil and criminal cases were raffled to the same trial court branch. The petitioner moved to suspend the criminal case, alleging a prejudicial question, but the Court of Appeals ruled none existed. During pre-trial for the criminal case, the parties, with the conformity of the public prosecutor, entered into a written agreement to adopt the evidence already presented in the civil case as their respective evidence in the criminal case. The trial court approved this agreement.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the petitioner of estafa based solely on the evidence adopted from the civil case, absent the public prosecutor’s active participation in presenting and offering such evidence for the prosecution in the criminal case.

RULING

No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centers on the validity and consequences of the pre-trial agreement. The petitioner, assisted by counsel, voluntarily entered into a written stipulation to adopt the civil case evidence for the criminal trial, with the explicit conformity of the public prosecutor. This agreement, signed as required by the Rules of Court, is binding. It constituted a judicial admission of the facts established by that evidence.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the prosecution failed to formally offer the adopted evidence. The act of entering into the court-approved agreement itself served as the adoption and incorporation of the civil case records into the criminal case. The public prosecutor’s conformity to the agreement signified his adoption of that evidence for the prosecution. The duty to prosecute was therefore satisfied through this procedural shortcut, which was designed to promote a fair and expeditious trial. The adopted evidence sufficiently established all elements of estafa under Article 315(1)(b): that the petitioner received the money in trust by virtue of her position, that she misappropriated or converted it, and that it caused prejudice to the bank. Her failure to account for the shortage, despite demand, completed the offense.