G.R. No. 159450 ; March 30, 2011
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Olivia Aleth Garcia Cristobal, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Olivia Aleth Garcia Cristobal was a teller at the Prudential Bank, Angeles Main Branch, assigned to handle dollar transactions. An information charged her with Qualified Theft for allegedly taking $10,000.00 from the bank on or about January 2, 1996, with grave abuse of trust and confidence. During a spot audit on January 2, 1996, a shortage of $10,000.00 was discovered in her cash accountability. She initially explained the shortage was due to a withdrawal from Dollar Savings Account No. FX-836 (of Adoracion and Apolinario Tayag) made after cut-off time on December 29, 1995, to be treated as a January 2, 1996 transaction. The withdrawal memo presented was dated January 2, 1996, but lacked required bank officer signatures. Further investigation revealed a “hold jacket” on the account prohibiting withdrawals below $35,000.00, which the $10,000.00 withdrawal would violate. The signature on the withdrawal memo differed from the specimen signatures, and the account holder, Apolinario Tayag, denied making any such withdrawal and being in Angeles City on the relevant dates. When confronted again, accused-appellant cried and stated she would explain to the bank president. The next day, she claimed she gave the $10,000.00 to a man who threatened her family. In a written letter to the bank president dated January 4, 1996, she apologized and explained the $10,000.00 shortage and another peso shortage, detailing that an armed man had been extorting money from her since September, including the $10,000.00 on December 29, 1995. After the prosecution rested its case, the accused filed a “Demurrer to Evidence and Motion to Defer Defense Evidence” without first obtaining express leave of court. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the demurrer and, citing Section 15, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, ruled that by filing the demurrer without leave, she waived her right to present evidence and submitted the case for judgment. The RTC convicted her of Qualified Theft. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant validly waived her right to present evidence by filing a demurrer to evidence without express leave of court, and whether the prosecution’s evidence was sufficient to prove her guilt for Qualified Theft beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification on the penalty. The Court held:
1. On the Waiver of the Right to Present Evidence: The filing of a demurrer to evidence without prior express leave of court operates as a waiver of the right to present evidence under the express provision of Section 15, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court. While such a waiver is not trivial, the rule is clear and binding. The trial court correctly deemed the case submitted for judgment based on the prosecution’s evidence alone after denying the demurrer filed without leave.
2. On the Sufficiency of Evidence for Conviction: The prosecution evidence established the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The elements of Qualified Theft were proven: (a) the taking of personal property; (b) the property belongs to another (the bank); (c) the taking was done with intent to gain (animus lucrandi); (d) the taking was done without the owner’s consent; (e) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things; and (f) the taking was done with grave abuse of confidence, as the accused was a bank teller entrusted with cash. Her own letter to the bank president dated January 4, 1996, where she admitted the shortage and provided an explanation, constituted a judicial admission binding upon her. Her subsequent denial in court could not prevail over this prior voluntary and categorical admission. The claim of extortion was unsupported by evidence and did not negate her intent to gain, as the money was taken from the bank’s custody for her own purpose (to give to the extortionist to protect her family), constituting personal gain. The penalty was modified in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, imposing an indeterminate sentence.