View full case

CRISTETA CHUA-BURCE v. CA

FACTS:

This case involves an appeal by certiorari of a decision by the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's decision finding the petitioner guilty of estafa. The uncontroverted facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are that the petitioner, as the bank's Cash Custodian, was responsible for a shortage of P150,000.00 in the bank's vault. The investigations conducted by the bank and the National Bureau of Investigation concluded that the petitioner was primarily responsible for the shortage. As a result, the petitioner's service with the bank was terminated, and the bank filed a civil case to recover the missing amount. Subsequently, the petitioner was charged with estafa in a criminal case. The petitioner moved for the suspension of the criminal case on the ground of a prejudicial question, which was denied by the Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, the trial of the civil case continued, and during the pre-trial conference of the criminal case, the parties agreed to adopt their respective evidence in the civil case as their evidence in the criminal case. Ultimately, the trial court rendered a consolidated decision finding the petitioner guilty of estafa and liable for the amount of P150,000.00.

ISSUES:

  1. Is the result of polygraph examination admissible in evidence?

  2. Can the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court admit in evidence the evidence which was already denied admission in the order of the former judge of the same court?

  3. Does prima facie presumption of misappropriation or conversion exist against the petitioner when there were other persons who had direct and greater access in the cash-in-vault?

  4. Is Rule 111 Section 2 (a) of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure applicable in the case at bar?

  5. Was there a valid proceeding when the fiscal was not actually present and did not control and supervise the prosecution of the case?

  6. Whether or not the elements of estafa through misappropriation are present in the case at bar.

RULING:

  1. The results of the polygraph examination are not admissible in evidence.

  2. The presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court can admit in evidence the evidence which was already denied admission in the order of the former judge of the same court.

  3. Prima facie presumption of misappropriation or conversion exists against the petitioner, despite other persons having access to the cash-in-vault.

  4. Rule 111 Section 2 (a) of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure is not applicable in the case at bar.

  5. There was a valid proceeding even though the fiscal was not actually present and did not control and supervise the prosecution of the case.

  6. The Supreme Court found that the first element of estafa through misappropriation is absent in this case. The petitioner, who was a cash custodian, did not have juridical possession over the missing funds. The court explained that when the money or property is received by the offender in trust, on commission, or for administration, the offender acquires both material or physical possession and juridical possession of the thing received. Juridical possession means a possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing, which can be set up even against the owner. In this case, the petitioner's possession of the cash as a cash custodian was similar to that of a bank teller, which was a mere employee possession. Therefore, the element of juridical possession being absent, the petitioner cannot be convicted of estafa.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Polygraph examination results are not admissible in evidence.

  • The presiding judge of the court can admit evidence that was previously denied admission by another judge.

  • Prima facie presumption of misappropriation or conversion exists against an accused, even if there were other persons with access to the alleged misappropriated property.

  • Rule 111 Section 2 (a) of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure may not be applicable in certain cases.

  • The presence and control of the fiscal during the prosecution of a case may not always be necessary for a valid proceeding.

  • In order for the crime of estafa through misappropriation to be present, the following elements must be met: (1) personal property is received in trust, on commission, or for administration; (2) there is conversion or diversion of the property by the receiver; (3) such conversion, diversion, or denial is to the injury of another; and (4) there is a demand for the return of the property.

  • Juridical possession is a possession that gives the transferee a right over the thing, which can be set up even against the owner.