G.R. No. 251131 , July 06, 2021
Isagani Q. Lisaca, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

This case stemmed from two Informations charging petitioner Isagani Q. Lisaca, the Chief Executive Officer of El Nino Ruis Insurance Agency, Inc. (Al Niño), with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. In Criminal Case No. 02-597, he was accused of receiving in trust accountable insurance policies worth P96,984,047.65 with an obligation to remit collected premiums, but misappropriating the amount. In Criminal Case No. 02-598, he was accused of collecting premiums totaling P20,035,067.93 and failing to remit them to the complainant, Imperial Insurance Inc. (Imperial), despite demands. Petitioner pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented witnesses who testified that petitioner, as a commission agent, received blank insurance forms from Imperial, sold policies, collected premiums, but failed to return 2,998 blank forms and failed to remit the collected premiums. The defense presented witnesses, including petitioner, who denied the charges, claimed overpayment, and argued the accusations were baseless. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found petitioner guilty on both counts. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision with modification, adjusting the penalty. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the CA Decision and Resolution, and ACQUITTED petitioner. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, for Criminal Case No. 02-597, the evidence did not establish that petitioner received the specific insurance policies in trust, as the prosecution only presented summaries and unreturned forms without proof of actual receipt by petitioner. For Criminal Case No. 02-598, the prosecution failed to prove that petitioner collected the premiums, as the Statement of Accounts was not supported by original documents and the testimony was based on unauthenticated records. Additionally, the Informations were defective for alleging the crimes occurred “in or about and sometime during the month of February, 2001,” while the evidence covered transactions from 1996 to 1999, violating petitioner’s constitutional right to be informed of the precise charge. Due to these failures of proof and the defective Informations, petitioner’s acquittal was warranted.