G.R. No. 150439 - AMELITA DELA CRUZ, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa in the amount of P352,427.31. There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances to appreciate for or against the accused and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the court hereby sentences the accused to suffer four (4) years two (2) months of prision correctional as minimum to twenty (20) years as maximum which is maximum prision mayor or plus, one (1) year per additional P10,000.00 but not to exceed (20) years. (Art 3151, Revised Penal Code) The accused shall indemnify the complainant the amount that was embezzled. [11] Affirming in toto the aforequoted decision, the Sixteenth Division [12] of the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court finding the circumstances aforequoted were consistent with the hypothesis that the accused-petitioner is guilty of the crime charged and held that the fact of the shortage of funds was clearly established without opposition from the accused-petitioner, in addition to the following facts: [13] 1) She alone was entrusted with the money for the payroll and she alone had complete access to it; 2) She had to erase the data in the computer in order to destroy the evidence against her and to cover her guilt; 3) At the time of the discovery of the anomaly, she conveniently disappeared from the scene and while investigation was on-going, she kept on changing her residence and without even informing her closest relatives; and 4) She maintained a lifestyle beyond her financial means, which created some doubts as to her honesty. The appellate court promulgated its decision on 31 May 2001, the dispositive portion following which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto . The accused-petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was however denied on 29 October 2001. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari . The accused-petitioner claims the Court of Appeals erred when it affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court knowing the said decision is contrary to law and jurisprudence, and that the evidence presented is not sufficient to convict her beyond reasonable doubt. In support thereof, she raised the following issues: I. WHETHER OR NOT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AGAINST PETITIONER IS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT HER GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF ESTAFA WITH ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE AS CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION; II. WHETHER OR NOT FORMAL DEMAND IS AN ESSENTIAL REQUISITE IN THE CRIME OF ESTAFA WITH ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE TO SUSTAIN A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION. We find in favor of the accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner initially questions the sufficiency of the evidence of the prosecution which the trial court leaned on when it found her guilty of estafa beyond reasonable doubt. She alleges that the findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, are "just mere erroneous conclusion(s) unsupported by evidence on re