G.R. No. 204644 February 11, 2015
ANGELITA CRUZ BENITO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Angelita Cruz Benito and Rebecca Agbulos were charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that from June 8 to August 3, 1994, in Quezon City, they conspired to defraud Dorie Cruz-Abadilla by receiving assorted pieces of jewelry valued at ₱2,070,300.00 on a commission basis, under the obligation to return the proceeds if sold or the jewelry if unsold, but instead misappropriated or converted them to their own use.
The prosecution’s evidence showed that Agbulos, introduced as a jeweler, received several batches of jewelry from Abadilla on June 9, 14, and 16, 1994, issuing checks as security, all of which were later dishonored. Benito allegedly accompanied Agbulos during these transactions. When Abadilla demanded security, Agbulos provided a spurious certificate of title. Abadilla later obtained pawn tickets from E. Ochoa Pawnshop issued to “Linda Chua” for items identified as her jewelry. Pawnshop appraiser Estela Diloria testified that “Linda Chua” was Benito.
The defense claimed Benito had no participation; she denied being “Linda Chua” or accompanying Agbulos, stating she was working as a cook and caretaker at Agbulos’s mother’s house. Agbulos testified that Benito had no involvement in the transactions.
The Regional Trial Court convicted both, finding conspiracy in the receipt of jewelry in trust and subsequent pawning under a false name. The Court of Appeals affirmed, sustaining the identification of Benito as “Linda Chua” and the conspiracy finding.

ISSUE

Whether Angelita Cruz Benito conspired with Rebecca Agbulos in committing estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition and acquitted Angelita Cruz Benito.
The Court held that conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence failed to establish that Benito conspired with Agbulos. The prosecution did not prove that Benito received the jewelry in trust from Abadilla, an essential element of estafa under paragraph 1(b). Mere presence during transactions or acquaintance with Agbulos is insufficient to prove conspiracy. The testimony identifying Benito as “Linda Chua” was unreliable, as the pawnshop appraiser did not personally transact with the pawner and had no extraordinary reason to remember the identity. The alleged conspiracy was based on speculation and misapprehension of facts. Conspiracy cannot be presumed; it requires clear evidence of a common criminal design. Since the prosecution failed to prove Benito’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, she is entitled to acquittal.