Patula vs.

People

G.R. No. 164457. April 11, 2012

Facts:

Anna Lerima Patula, a saleswoman of Footlucker’s Chain of Stores, Inc. in Dumaguete City, was
charged with estafa. The information filed in the Regional Trial Court in Dumaguete City charged her of
having collected and received the total sum of P 131,286.97 from several customers of said company but
has failed to remit the said amount to the company despite the repeated demands. She, instead, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated the money and converted the proceeds of the sale for her
own use and benefit. Trials on the merits ensued having pled not guilty at the arraignment.

The first witness of the Prosecution was Lamberto Go, the branch manager of Footlucker’s in
Dumaguete. He defined the duties and responsibilities that Patula has as sales representative. He also
testified that at first her volume of sales was quite high, but later on dropped. He then confronted her
and decided to subject her to an audit by the auditor of the company. It was then that he learned there
were discrepancies between the confirmations from the customers and Footlucker’s records.

Karen Guivencan, Footlucker’s auditor, was the second and last witness of the Prosecution. It was
in the course of her audit that she discovered differences between the original receipts held by the
customers and the duplicate copies of the receipts submitted by Patula to the office. She then presented
a list of the discrepancies between the customers’ confirmations and the office records as per audit.

However, during Guivencan’s direct-examination, petitioner’s counsel continuously objected and

question the evidences and testimony of Guivencan on the ground that they were hearsay because the
persons who actually made the entries were not themselves presented in court. They also regarded
Guinvencan’s testimonies to be irrelevant because they did were not proof of estafa but of falsification,
an offense not alleged in the information.

Despite these objections, the RTC rendered their decision finding Patula guilty of estafa. RTC
denied their motion for reconsideration.

Issues: (Copy from case?)

Ruling:

The Supreme Court believed that there was no violation of the petitioner’s right to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusation despite the information not alleging falsification. It is believed
by the court that the falsification was done in order to conceal her misappropriation. This then shows that
the falsification was not an offense separate and distinct from the estafa charged against her, but rather
an essential ingredient in establishing the crime duly alleged in the information. It is then believed that
the RTC was correct in its decision with this specific concern.

The court also ruled that neither ledgers nor receipts were admissible as judicial evidence against
the petitioner. Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, Section 19 and 20, distinguishes between a public and a
private document and provides how private documents should be duly authenticated, respectively. With
the aforementioned sections it can be proven that the documents presented by the Prosecution were
considered to be private documents which needed proper authentication. However, Prosecution failed to
authenticate these documents before presenting them, thus failing to prove the authenticity of the
evidence during examination.

Guivencan’s testimony on the ledgers was also considered inadmissible as judicial evidence for
being hearsay. Section 36 of Rule 130, Rules of Court, states that witness can testify only to those facts
that she knows of her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as
otherwise provided in these rules. Since Guivencan was not the one who prepared the said ledger, her
testimony could not be considered reliable. The Prosecution’s defense was that the ledgers was done in
the ordinary course of business and, therefore, exempt from the hearsay rule, as per Section 43, Rule 130
of the Rules of Court. However, Prosecution and the RTC failed to consider the requisites in applying this
rule, such as that the person who made the entry must be dead or unable to testify. However, this is not
true with the current case, therefore Section 43, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court could not be applied. The
testimony is therefore proven to be hearsay and inadmissible.

With all the foregoing considerations, Prosecution was then unable to present reliable evidence
on damage to establish the Petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner was, therefore,
acquitted as without prejudice to the filing of a civil action against her for the recovery of any amount that
she may still owe to Footlucker’s.