G.R. No. 256759 - XXX,[1], VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional , as minimum, to six years and one day of prision mayor , as maximum, and to pay a fine in the amount of PHP 100,000.00. It likewise ordered petitioner to undergo mandatory psychological counseling at the Social Services Development Department in xxxxxxxxxxx . [16] In so ruling, the RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crime charged since it was proven that: (a) AAA256759 and petitioner were husband and wife, and that they had children; (b) AAA256759 and their children suffered mental and emotional anguish when petitioner failed to account for the proceeds of the loan they obtained from Metrobank; (c) petitioner admitted that he received PHP 630,000.00 from AAA256759 taken from the proceeds of the loan, but claimed that it was used for their microlending business; and (d) petitioner failed to present evidence that he engaged in a microlending business in their office, and that he used a part of the proceeds of the loan for his family. [17] Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA. The CA Ruling In a Decision [18] dated November 9, 2020, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC ruling, and accordingly, increased the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty to eight years and one day of prision mayor . It likewise cancelled the cash bond posted by petitioner for his provisional liberty, and accordingly, ordered the RTC to issue a warrant for his arrest. [19] In upholding petitioner's conviction, the CA found that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of violation of Section 5(i) of RA 9262, considering that: (a) AAA256759 and their children had to look for petitioner to implore the latter to return the money, but to no avail; (b) the result of AAA256759's medical examination and evaluation revealed that she suffered from Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood (DSM V Criteria); (c) petitioner admitted that he received money from the proceeds of the loan, but claimed that it was used to finance their microlending business; (d) he failed to provide any proof that he engaged in the said business, or that he used the proceeds of the business for his family. Moreover, it ruled that petitioner's invocation of the absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code was misplaced since it can only be applied to felonies such as theft, swindling, and malicious mischief. [20] Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution [21] dated June 7, 2021. Hence, the instant Petition. The Issue Before the Court The issue before the Court is whether the CA erred in affirming petitioner's conviction for the crime charged. The Court's Ruling The Petition is meritorious. At the outset, it must be stressed that in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct e