G.R. No. 207249, May 14, 2021
ZENAIDA LAYSON VDA. DE MANJARES, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

An Information for estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code was filed against petitioner Zenaida Layson Vda. de Manjares (Zenaida). The charge alleged that from September 12, 1996, to October 4, 1998, in Polangui, Albay, Zenaida received in trust from Paulo P. Ballesteros, Jr. various appliances, furniture, and other products valued at P730,811.59 for sale on a consignment basis. She was under an express obligation to remit the proceeds of sales or return unsold items but instead, with abuse of confidence, misappropriated and converted the amount to her personal use, to the damage and prejudice of Ballesteros.
Zenaida pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s evidence, based on an audit by Rafael Roderick Pan, showed Zenaida’s total accountability of P730,811.59, broken down into categories such as undeposited collections, short deposits, disallowed commissions, unreplaced bounced checks, unreceipted sales, unaccounted stocks, and other irregularities. The audit compared columnar logbooks prepared by cashier Rodilyn Repuyan with bank deposit records. Repuyan testified she remitted daily collections to Zenaida, who issued acknowledgment receipts, and it was Zenaida’s duty to deposit the collections. However, the original acknowledgment receipts were borrowed and not returned by Zenaida’s daughter, and the photocopies were lost. Zenaida, as the sole defense witness, claimed she was a mere employee, not a trustee, and that the shortages were due to Ballesteros’ own acts, like taking merchandise without proper documentation, and the business’s practice of giving discounts and commissions.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Zenaida of estafa. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Zenaida filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

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

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals and ACQUITTED Zenaida Layson Vda. de Manjares on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, two essential elements were lacking:
1. The prosecution failed to prove that the goods were received by Zenaida in trust or under obligation to account for or return them. The evidence did not establish a fiduciary relationship or a trust receipt agreement. The arrangement was one of employer-employee, with Zenaida as a branch manager. The goods were delivered to the store, Alson’s Polangui, not personally to Zenaida under a trust agreement. Her duty to account arose from her employment, not from a distinct trust receipt.
2. The prosecution failed to prove misappropriation or conversion by Zenaida. The audit report, which was the primary basis for the alleged shortage, was inadmissible as evidence. It was not offered as an exception to the hearsay rule (e.g., as entries in the course of business) and the auditor did not testify on how he prepared it or the sources of his data. Furthermore, the columnar logbooks prepared by the cashier, which were compared to the bank records, were not proof that Zenaida actually received the amounts listed, as the cashier admitted Zenaida did not sign them. The loss of the acknowledgment receipts that Zenaida allegedly issued further weakened the proof of misappropriation. The defense also presented evidence suggesting that Ballesteros himself took merchandise and that business practices like discounts and commissions could explain the discrepancies.
Since the prosecution did not overcome the presumption of innocence, Zenaida was acquitted. The Court noted that its ruling was limited to criminal liability, as the private complainant had reserved the right to file a separate civil action.