GERTRUDES TEH,
Petitioner,
-versus-
G.R. No. 141180
January
11, 2005
THE PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:
Before us is the Petition for Review on C
ertiorari filed by
Gertrudes Teh assailing the Resolution
of the Court of Appeals dated October 4, 1999 in CA-G.R. CR No. 23482
dismissing her petition for review and its Resolution dated November
29, 1999 denying her Motion for Reconsideration.
The factual backdrop of this case is as
follows:
Petitioner
Gertrudes Teh and Josalie Baguio were charged with
estafa before the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC), Branch 2,
Davao City.
The Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. 45,542-B-96, reads:
“That on or about
December 18, 1995, in the City of Davao,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
above-mentioned accused received on consignment basis from Rodson’s
Collection
Center, represented by Elizabeth E. Maridable, goods worth P1,583.00
with
the express obligation on her part to sell the consigned items and to
remit the
proceeds from the sale or to return the same if unsold to said
complainant; but
far from complying with the aforesaid obligation, with grave abuse of
confidence and in violation of trust and with intent to defraud, the
said
accused willfully and unlawfully failed to remit the proceeds from the
sale nor
to return the same items despite demands therefore, thereby
misappropriating
and converting the same to her personal use and benefit, to the damage
and
prejudice of herein complainant in the said amount.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Upon arraignment, petitioner, assisted by
counsel, pleaded not
guilty to the charge. Josalie Baguio has remained at large.
The evidence for the prosecution show that
petitioner was
formerly an area manager of Rodson’s Collection Center which sells
various
personal products, such as ladies’ T-shirts and perfumes, men’s
cologne, care
soap and shading strip. Under her were several dealers, one of
whom was Josalie
Baguio. Based on a “ride on” system, the area manager was allowed
in certain
instances to withdraw stocks for sale in the name of the dealer,
provided that
both would sign a trust receipt agreement. The trust receipt
agreement
provides that they should remit the proceeds of the goods sold within a
specified time. If not sold, then they should return the unsold
items to
Rodson’s Collection Center.
On December 18, 1995, petitioner and Josalie
Baguio withdrew from
the Rodson’s Collection Center several items consisting of men’s
cologne, soap,
and other sundries worth P1,583.00. Both signed the required
trust
receipt agreement.
However, petitioner and Josalie failed to
remit the proceeds of
the sale despite Rodson’s Collection Center’s several demands, hence,
they were
charged with estafa.
Petitioner contends that while she signed
the trust receipt
agreement, however, she did so only for the purpose of identifying her
as the
area manager of Josalie Baguio. She denied receiving any
item. The stocks
withdrawn were for the account of Josalie.
On February 15, 1999, the MTCC rendered its
Decision, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, finding
accused GERTRUDES TEH guilty beyond reasonable
doubt, she is hereby sentenced to an imprisonment of THREE (3) MONTHS
of arresto
mayor as minimum to TWO (2) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS of prision
correccional as maximum; to indemnify the offended party the sum of
ONE
THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY THREE PESOS (P1,583.00) and to pay
the
proportionate share of the costs.
Accused is further
ordered to indemnify the offended party expenses
incurred in enforcing her claim from the time the case was filed in
1996 to its
final termination in 1999, which the Court hereby fixed as reasonable
in the
amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00).
As regards accused
JOSALIE S. BAGUIO who remains at-large, let the
case be sent to the ARCHIVES to be withdrawn therefrom as soon as she
is
apprehended.
SO ORDERED.”
In finding petitioner guilty as charged, the
MTCC ruled that
inasmuch as she signed the trust receipt agreement, she is bound by the
terms
stipulated therein. Her failure to remit the proceeds or to
return the goods
to Rodson’s Collection Center constitutes estafa under Article 315(1)
of the
Revised Penal Code.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 10, Davao City,
affirmed the MTCC Decision.
Petitioner then elevated the matter to the
Court of Appeals by
way of a petition for review.
However, the Court of Appeals dismissed the
petition for being
insufficient in form, not being accompanied by duplicate original or
certified
true copies of the documents and material parts of the record that
would
support the allegations. Moreover, there was no written
explanation why
service of the petition was not done personally.
Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration but was denied by
the Appellate Court.
Hence, the instant petition.
Petitioner submits that the Court
of Appeals erred in holding that she failed to comply with Section 2,
Rule 42
and Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended.
In his comment on the petition, the
Solicitor General maintains
that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition in
CA-G.R. CR
No. 23482.
Section 2, Rule 42 of the same Rules
provides:
“SEC. 2. Form
and contents. – The petition shall be filed in
seven (7) legible copies, with the original copy intended for the court
being
indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall (a) state the full
names of the
parties to the case, without impleading the lower courts or judges
thereof
either as petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the specific
material dates
showing that it was filed on time; (c) set forth concisely a statement
of the
matters involved, the issues raised, the specification of errors of
fact or law,
or both, allegedly committed by the Regional Trial Court, and the
reasons or
arguments relied upon for the allowance of the appeal; (d) be
accompanied by
clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or
final
orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of
the
Regional Trial Court, the requisite number of plain copies thereof and
of the
pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support
the
allegations of the petition.
x
x x”
We note that petitioner herself admits that
the only documents
attached to the petition in CA-G.R. CR No. 23482 were certified true
copies of
the Decisions of the RTC and the MTCC. There were no copies of
the pleadings
filed below or other material portions of the record which would
support the
allegations in the petition. Indeed, this is contrary to Section
2, Rule 42
quoted above.
Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure reads:
“SEC. 11. Priorities
in modes of service and filing. – Whenever
practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall
be done
personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a
resort to
other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the
service or
filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause
to
consider the paper as not filed.”
Again, petitioner admits that she failed to
comply with the above
provision. She contends, however, that no prejudice was caused to
the parties
by her non-compliance.
Clearly, petitioner violated both provisions
quoted above which
warrants the dismissal of her petition by the Court of Appeals.
We thus rule that in dismissing the petition
in CA-G.R. CR No.
23482, the Court of Appeals did not commit any error.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Resolutions of the
Court of Appeals dated October 4, 1999 and November 29, 1999 in CA-G.R.
CR No. 23482 are AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban,
J., (Chairman), Corona,
Carpio-Morales, and Garcia, JJ.,
concur.
|