FACTS:

Marissa Ceniza-Manantan and her sister-in-law, Regina Manantan-Vizconde, were indicted for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The indictment alleged that the accused defrauded Alberto Carilla by receiving jewelry worth P1,079,000.00 on commission basis, with the obligation to sell the jewelry and turn over the proceeds to Carilla or return the unsold items. Manantan was arrested while Vizconde remained at large. Manantan pleaded not guilty to the charges. The prosecution presented evidence showing that the accused sisters-in-law failed to remit the purchase price or return the jewelry, despite verbal demands. They issued postdated checks, which were dishonored upon deposit. Carilla made a written demand through his lawyer, but the accused still refused to pay. Manantan denied the accusations and claimed that the case was a harassment suit. The Quezon City RTC found Manantan guilty of estafa and sentenced her to imprisonment and payment of damages. Manantan appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modification the RTC decision.

The case involves the appeal of the accused, Manantan, from the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicting her of the crime of swindling. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision but modified the period of imprisonment under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Manantan filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. She then filed a petition before the Supreme Court.

Manantan alleged that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the elements of conspiracy and the alleged contractual relationship between her and the private complainant. She also claimed that her counsel in the trial court failed to effectively represent her, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

The prosecution presented the testimony of Carilla, the private complainant, as its sole witness. Carilla testified that Manantan and Vizconde agreed to be his agents in selling jewelry; they received jewelry from him in trust and were supposed to sell them within two weeks and remit the proceeds or return the unsold jewelry. However, they failed to do so, and postdated checks issued by Manantan were dishonored. The prosecution also presented documentary evidence, such as Carilla's complaint-affidavit and the dishonored checks.

The defense presented Manantan as its sole witness, who denied having any transaction with Carilla and claimed that she lent the dishonored checks to Vizconde. She argued that Carilla had an ulterior motive in accusing her since he failed to recover the alleged entrusted jewelry from her.

The issue before the court is the credibility of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and defense.

The case involves the issue of the number of witnesses needed to establish the guilt of the accused. The court emphasized that the focus should not be on the number of witnesses but on their credibility and the nature and quality of their testimonies. The court further emphasized that witnesses should be weighed, not numbered, and it is not unusual for a conclusion of guilt to be reached based on the testimony of a single witness. Therefore, the conviction of the accused can still be obtained based on the positive and credible testimony of a single witness.

ISSUES:

1. The issue is whose evidence is credible.

2. Whether Manantan's failure to account for the jewelries upon demand constitutes misappropriation and conversion, and therefore estafa.

3. Whether Manantan's denial of receipt of the jewelries constitutes estafa.

4. Whether Manantan's former counsel's alleged incompetence and failure to discharge his duty as her defense counsel warrant a new trial.

5. Whether or not Atty. Mallabo's mistakes and shortcomings in conducting examinations and assessing evidence constitute recklessness or gross negligence.

6. Whether or not the prison term imposed on Manantan should be adjusted.

7. Whether or not the indemnification of actual damages in favor of Carilla is proper.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's evidence was credible and established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The lone witness presented by the prosecution, Carilla, provided consistent and credible testimony that was supported by documentary evidence consisting of dishonored checks and demand letters to the accused. In contrast, the defense relied mainly on denials without presenting plausible proof to rebut the prosecution's evidence.

2. Manantan's failure to account for the jewelries upon demand raises a presumption of misappropriation. The failure to produce the thing delivered in trust or to account for the money is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. Manantan's bare denials are not sufficient to overcome this presumption.

3. Manantan's denial of receipt of the jewelries is unsubstantiated and cannot prevail over the categorical declarations of the owner. Hence, her denial also constitutes estafa.

4. The mistake or negligence of a counsel generally binds the client. Mistakes in the conduct of the trial, such as the competency of a witness, the relevancy of evidence, or the defense strategy, are not proper grounds for a new trial. Exceptions may apply if the counsel's mistake is so serious that it prejudices the client's right to a fair trial or if the counsel's gross negligence results in the client's deprivation of liberty or property without due process. In this case, Manantan's case falls within the general rule and a new trial is not warranted.

5. The mistakes and omissions of Atty. Mallabo may only be considered as simple negligence or a slight want of care, and not recklessness or gross negligence.

6. The prison term imposed on Manantan, being in accordance with the applicable provision of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, is correct.

7. The indemnification of actual damages in favor of Carilla in the sum of P1,079,000.00 is supported by the records and is therefore proper.

PRINCIPLES:

• Truth is established not by the number of witnesses but by the quality of their testimonies.

• The testimony of a lone witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction.

• The findings of fact of the trial court, affirmed by the appellate court, are generally binding upon the Supreme Court.

• Positive testimony on affirmative matters carries greater evidentiary weight than mere denials.

• The elements of estafa (misappropriation or conversion of property received in trust, denial of receipt, and prejudice to the owner) were duly established through the prosecution's evidence.

• Misappropriation or conversion may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence.

• Failure to account for the thing delivered in trust raises a presumption of misappropriation.

• Denying untruthfully that the thing was received constitutes estafa.

• The mistake or negligence of a counsel generally binds the client.

• Mistakes in the conduct of the trial are not proper grounds for a new trial, except in cases of serious prejudice or deprivation of due process caused by the counsel's gross negligence.

• Lawyers' mistakes and omissions may be considered as simple negligence or a slight want of care, not recklessness or gross negligence, if there is no total abandonment or disregard of the client's cause or showing of conscious indifference or disregard of consequences.

• The penalties for estafa provided under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code are composed of two, not three, periods, and the time included in the penalty should be divided into three equal portions.

• The Indeterminate Sentence Law is applied to compute the proper penalty, with the maximum term not exceeding the maximum period designated in the specific offense, and the minimum term not less than the minimum period designated by the same.

• Indemnification of actual damages may be granted if supported by the records of the case.