GR 185129; (June, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 185129; June 17, 2013
ABELARDO JANDUSAY, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Abelardo Jandusay was elected treasurer of CALAPUPATODA, a tricycle operators and drivers association, for 1999 and 2000. His duties included handling the association’s funds, and he maintained a “blue book” recording its income and expenses. During a turnover meeting on April 3, 2001, after the election of new officers, Jandusay turned over the blue book, which showed a net remaining fund of ₱661,015.00 for the year 2000. He failed to turn over this amount despite demands. The minutes of that meeting contained an undertaking signed by Jandusay to return the money by September 2001. He was charged with estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. At trial, Jandusay denied signing the undertaking, claiming it was inserted above his signature on the minutes. He also asserted that the association’s president, Dionisio Delina, handled the funds for 2000 due to Jandusay’s pending estafa case from 1999, presenting a memorandum from Delina to support this. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Jandusay, finding the prosecution’s evidence, including the minutes, credible and rejecting the memorandum as dubious. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming the RTC’s judgment finding Abelardo Jandusay guilty of estafa beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s decision with modification to the penalty. The Court held that the petition raised factual issues inappropriate for a petition for review under Rule 45, as findings of fact by the CA affirming the trial court are binding. It concurred with the lower courts that all elements of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) were proven: (1) Jandusay, as treasurer, received the association’s funds in trust; (2) he misappropriated the funds by failing to account for and return them upon demand; (3) this caused prejudice to the association; and (4) there was a demand for their return. His failure to account for the funds upon demand constituted circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. The Court modified the indeterminate penalty to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum, conforming to prevailing jurisprudence.