GR L 36543; (July, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-36543 July 27, 1988
ALFONSO VALLARTA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Alfonso Vallarta was a warehouseman-cashier for the National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC) in Jaen, Nueva Ecija. An audit conducted in April 1957 revealed a shortage in his accountability totaling P11,109.70, covering cash, rice, palay, and empty sacks. As the accountable officer, he was charged with malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court of First Instance found him guilty, a conviction affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Vallarta sought a new trial, aiming to present affidavits from Pedro Esquivel and Pedro Perez to rebut the shortage of 6,161 empty sacks. The trial court denied the motion, noting the unsigned nature of one statement and ruling the affidavits were hearsay as the affiants were not presented for cross-examination. The Court of Appeals upheld this denial, observing the affidavits did not conclusively prove the borrowing of the exact number of missing sacks.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in appreciating the evidence and in denying the motion for a new trial, thereby wrongfully convicting the petitioner of malversation.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the conviction. The legal logic centered on the rules of evidence and the scope of appellate review. On the motion for new trial, the Court upheld the lower courts’ dismissal. Affidavits are considered inferior evidence, especially when the affiants are available but not presented, as they are hearsay and deny the prosecution the right to cross-examination. The purported new evidence was deemed unsubstantial and insufficient to alter the judgment.
Regarding the appreciation of evidence, the Court emphasized the primacy of the trial court’s factual findings, especially on witness credibility. The audit established a prima facie case of malversation under Article 217, where a shortage creates a presumption of misappropriation. Petitioner’s defense, including claims of a running account for borrowed sacks, was correctly rejected for lack of credible substantiation. The Court found no misapprehension of facts or grave abuse of discretion, as the conclusions were supported by the evidence on record. Consequently, the factual findings of the lower courts are binding, and no reversible error was committed.