G.R. No. 164457 ; April 11, 2012
ANNA LERIMA PATULA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Anna Lerima Patula was charged with estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The information alleged that as a sales representative of Footlucker’s Chain of Stores, Inc., she collected payments from customers but misappropriated the total sum of ₱131,286.97, failing to remit the same to the company. During trial, the prosecution presented two witnesses: Lamberto Go, the branch manager, and Karen Guivencan, the company auditor. Guivencan testified that her audit revealed discrepancies between the amounts on the original receipts held by customers and the duplicate copies submitted by Patula. To prove these discrepancies, the prosecution offered customer ledger accounts (Exhibits B to YY) as documentary evidence.
Petitioner’s counsel interposed a continuing objection to these ledgers on the ground of hearsay, arguing that the persons who made the entries were not presented in court. The defense ultimately rested its case without presenting evidence. The Regional Trial Court convicted Patula, holding that the prosecution’s evidence stood unrefuted. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Patula elevated the case to the Supreme Court, contending that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the petitioner for estafa beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Anna Lerima Patula. The Court emphasized that in criminal cases, the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution, which must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on evidence that adheres to the rules of admissibility. The core of the prosecution’s case consisted of the ledger accounts (Exhibits B to YY), which were offered to prove that petitioner collected specific amounts that she did not remit. However, these documents were inadmissible as evidence of the truth of their entries. They constituted hearsay because the persons who prepared and made the entries were not presented as witnesses to testify on their authenticity and accuracy. The audit report and the testimony of auditor Guivencan, who merely summarized these records, were likewise hearsay and did not constitute competent evidence of the alleged misappropriation.
The trial court erred in relying on this inadmissible evidence simply because the defense chose not to present countervailing proof. An accused has no duty to present evidence when the prosecution’s evidence is inherently weak or incompetent. The prosecution’s failure to present the customers who allegedly paid or the company employees who recorded the transactions left its case without any competent proof of misappropriation. Consequently, the prosecution did not overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. The acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, and the Court ordered the immediate release of the petitioner unless she is detained for another lawful cause.