Balerta vs People

G.R. No. 205144, November 26, 2014

Recit-Ready Case Summary:

Margie Balerta was a cashier for Balasan Associated Barangays Multi-Purpose Cooperative (BABMPC).
Petitioner was convicted for the crime of estafa by the RTC. The petitioner challenged the above ruling
before the CA raising the factual issues of whether or not, as claimed by BABMPC, she had (a) falsified the
entries in the passbook, (b) received collections for remittance to the bank, (c) misappropriated BABMPC’s
money, and (d) committed estafa.

General Rule of Law/Doctrine:

Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — In civil cases, the party having the burden of proofmust establish
his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence
on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses’
manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying,
the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of
interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may
also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.

FACTS:
There are two sides to this story.According to Timonera, one of the two witnesses against her, Balerta
accomplished the falsification through the use of the two (2) passbooks, [the petitioner] was able to dispose of
the funds of the cooperative to the latter’s disadvantage. Moreover, [the petitioner] did not refute the evidence
of the private offended party that she maintained two (2) passbooks. The certification issued by the Assistant
Manager of the rural bank showing that [the petitioner] had declared as lost the old passbook was not
contradicted by the defense at all. In like manner, there was no evidence presented by the defense to
controvert the claim that the [petitioner] falsified the initials of the bank employees every time she records an
entry in the old passbook, either withdrawal or deposit. Timonera also testified that without the petitioner’s
presence and permission, the latter’s table and drawers were opened through the use of duplicate keys kept by
De Asis. The use of the duplicate keys to open each other’s office drawers was however a common practice
between the petitioner and De Asis.

According to Balerta: Timonera got angry that day when the petitioner reminded him of his cash advances,
which were already equivalent to his salaries for five months. The petitioner emphasized that Timonera had
exceeded the allowable cash advance amount of one-month salary. The petitioner alleged that Timonera was
ill motivated when he initiated the filing of the criminal complaint against her. Timonera intended to evade his
financial liabilities from BABMPC relative to his cash advances and the money which he had diverted to other
projects in violation of the rules of the cooperative. The petitioner also suspected that Timonera must have
speculated that the former had money as she then had plans to go abroad. The petitioner likewise stated that
she can no longer find the receipts, vouchers and books in her drawers showing the cash advances of
Timonera. On July 7, 1999, the petitioner proceeded to the Balasan Police Station to report about the forced
opening of her table and drawers which occurred on June 25, 1999. She also informed the police that the
amount of ₱5,000.00 kept in the drawers was missing. She confronted BABMPC about the missing cash.
Ambros admitted that he and De Asis opened the drawers but made no mention of any cash found thereon.

The second witness against Balerta, did not appear in court and testified against her.

The RTC and the CA ruled against her and convicted her of the crim of estafa.

Not giving up she raised the petition to the Supreme Court. Restated, the issues she presents for our
resolution are whether or not: (a) she is entitled to an acquittal considering that a cashier possesses no
juridical possession over the funds he or she holds; (b) demand, as an element of the crime of estafa, had
been proven in the instant case;and (c) her guilt had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

More importantly, the prosecution had not discharged the burden of proof required to convict in criminal cases.
First. Timonera admitted that he did not have any personal knowledge about how the petitioner committed the
1
SUBJECT - Name
acts of misappropriation. Second. The statements of the Internal Auditor, Ambros, were vital, but he never
appeared in court to testify or to shed light on any documents purportedly pointing to the petitioner’s
liability. Third. No representatives of the bank testified on the alleged inconsistencies found in the
passbooks. Fourth. Even the amount of money claimed to have been misappropriated was not determined with
certainty. Fifth. In convicting the petitioner, the RTC and the CA primarily relied on the falsified entries made on
the passbooks, but they were not formally offered as evidence, and the prosecution failed to establish that the
petitioner was solely in control of the said passbooks.

ISSUE:
WON:
(a) she is entitled to an acquittal considering that a cashier possesses no juridical possession over the funds
he or she holds;
(b) demand, as an element of the crime of estafa, had been proven in the instant case;and
(c) her guilt had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD:

There is merit in the instant petition.

a) The petitioner had no juridical possession over the allegedly misappropriated funds. The petitioner
claims that in Chua-Burce v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that a cashier cannot be convicted of
estafaif he or she has no juridical possession over the funds held. Further, the element of demand was
not established. There was no proof conclusively showing that the three letters were sent to the
petitioner by BABMPC. Assuming they were sent, no ample evidence exists to prove that they were in
fact received by the petitioner.

In the case at bench, there is no question that the petitioner was handling the funds lent by Care
Philippines to BABMPC. However, she held the funds in behalf of BABMPC. Over the funds, she had
mere physical or material possession, but she held no independent right or title, which she can set up
against BABMPC. The petitioner was nothing more than a mere cash custodian. Hence, the Court finds
that juridical possession of the funds as an element of the crime of estafa by misappropriation is absent
in the instant case.
b) In the prosecution of the crime of estafa, demand need not be formal if there exists evidence of
misappropriation. However, in the instant case, conclusive proofs of both misappropriation and demand are
wanting.
"Fundamental is the precept in all criminal prosecutions, that the constitutive acts of the offense must be
established with unwavering exactitude and moral certainty because this is the critical and only requisite to a
finding of guilt."
At the outset, it is significant to point out that neither the prosecution nor the defense had made any formal
offer of documentary evidence. The two passbooks, ledger, and three demand letters, while mentioned by
Timonera in his testimony, were notformally offered as evidence. The Court notes too that the contending
parties each had only one witness, namely, Timonera, for the prosecution, and the petitioner, for the
defense. Both of their testimonies were therefore without any corroboration. Considering the absence of
formal offers of documentary evidence, the judgments rendered by the RTC and the CA solely hinged on
who was more credible between the two witnesses.
c) In the case now under consideration, the Court acquits the petitioner not because she is found absolutely
innocent of the crime charged. The Court acquits merely because reasonable doubt exists anent her guilt.
Hence, the petitioner can still be held civilly liable to BABMPC if preponderant evidence exists to prove the
same.

Rule 133, Section 1 of the Rules of Court indicates how preponderance of evidence shall be determined, viz:
Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — In civil cases, the party having the burden of
proofmust establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or
superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and
circumstances of the case, the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and
opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the
probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal
credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the
number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. (Underscoring
ours)
In the instant petition, the prosecution manifested during the pre-trial that Timonera's testimony would touch
on the functions of the BABMPC and the duties of the petitioner. During the trial, Timonera made references
2
SUBJECT - Name
 to the alleged falsifications and misappropriations committed by the petitioner. However, he denied specific
knowledge of where exactly the falsifications and misappropriations were shown and recorded. This, plus
the fact that the prosecution made no formal offer of documentary evidence, leaves the Court in the dark as
to how the petitioner's civil liability, if any, shall be determined.

3
SUBJECT - Name