•
Grace San Diego y Trinidad Vs. The People of the Philippines G.R. No. 176114. April 8, 2015
FACTS:
1) Petitioner was the accountant of the cooperative. She had custody of the cooperative's checks
#) &)
3)
4) +)
7) 8)
which were pre-signed by its Manager and Chairman of the oard of !irectors. She was "ikewise in charge of cash in bank. She had custody of the documents pertaining to the withdrawa" of the cooperative's deposits with its depository banks. Petitioner comp"eted said checks by fi""ing in a"" the detai"s inc"usive of the date$ name of payee and the amount of the check in words and in figures but e%c"usive of the signatures. rom (ovember 1$ 1**+ to ,anuary +$ 1**$ she acted as cashier when eresita /on0a"es was on maternity "eave and acted as te""er from ,anuay 1&-&$ 1** when "orde"i0a 2campo went into her honeymoon. She then$ on both occasions$ had comp"ete access to the cash vau"ts and fi"ing cabinets of the cooperative where its documents were kept. Petitioner prepared a certification that the amount of Php*$+4&$4#.+ represented the tota" cash ba"ance of the cooperative its depository depo sitory banks as of March 11$ 1**. 5pon actua" verification$ it was shown that the tota" cash ba"ance was on"y Php&$+&$33#. $ indicating that there was a difference of Php +$1+$3.#4 and the "oss of which were une%p"ained. Petitioner Petitioner admitted admitted in a "etter to her father that she withdrew withdrew Php#$ from his account and Php#$ from her sister-in-"aw's account in the cooperative. Petitioner deposited Php1$4$ and Php#4$ to her account with PC6 ank on 7ugust 1&$ 1**+ and May #$ 1**+$ respective"y. Petitioner stopped reporting for work since March 1#$ 1**
ISSUE 1: 7s
such$ petitioner asserts that it is essentia" for a successfu" prosecution for theft that the e%istence of the persona"ity sto"en be estab"ished by 8ua"itative evidence$ so the prosecution must fai" if no such proof of good 8ua"ity was adduced HOLDING: NO. it ru"ed that the proof adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to prove petitioner's gui"t beyond beyond reasonab"e doubt. he he prosecution presented the testimony testimony of its e%pert witness. 9ecords are bereft of any showing that the audit report made by the independent auditor is erroneous and unsupported by documents and bank statements. ISSUE 2: Petitioner
a"so asserts that the Peop"e did not present any witness who categorica""y testified that petitioner ran away with the supposed missing funds.:5S on"y proved her incompetence in the performance of her assigned task and not necessari"y crimina" authorship. HOLDING: NO. People v. Ragon that Ragon that resort to circumstantia" evidence is inevitab"e when there are no eyewitnesses to a crime. he courts are a""owed to ru"e on the bases of circ circum umst stan anti tia" a" evid eviden ence ce if the the fo"" fo""ow owin ing g re8ui re8uisi site tess conc concur ur;; <1) <1) ther theree is more more than than one one circumstance$ <#) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven$ and <&) the combination of a"" the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonab"e doubt. ISSUE 3: Petitioner then insists that the proof adduced p"ausib"y indicates commission of estafa and not 8ua"ified theft. HOLDING: NO. in estafa there must reciept of property either in trust$ commission or for administration. possession of the petitioner was akin to that of a receiving te""er of funds received from third persons paid to the bank. Payment by third persons to the te""er is payment to the bank itse"f. :ence$ there the receipt of petitioner here does not constitute juridical possession. possession.
Modified rule on legal interest effective July 1, 2013 - August 2013 Philippine Supreme ourt !ecisions on ommercial "a# $ "%&'(%)*A+ A P*"*PP*% ."A/ see - August 2013 Philippine Supree !ourt "e#isions on !oer#i$l %$& ' %()*+(R!A A P%PPN( /%AG
.
del i nesl ai ddowni nt hec as eof Interest; legal rate beginning July 1, 2013 .Thegui Ea s t er nShi p pi ngL i ne sar ea c c or d i ng l ymod i fi e dt oembo dyBSPMBCi r c u l a rNo .79 9,a s f ol l ows : I .Whenanobl i gat i on,r egar dl es sofi t ssour c e,i . e. ,l aw,c ont r ac t s ,quas i c ont r ac t s ,del i c t s orquas i del i c t si sbr eac hed,t hec ont r av enorc anbehel dl i abl ef ordamages .The pr ov i s i onsunderTi t l eXVI I Ion“ Damages ”oft heCi v i l Codegov er ni ndet er mi ni ngt he measur eofr ecover abl edamages. I I .Wi t hr egar dpar t i c ul ar l yt oanawar dofi nt er es ti nt hec onc eptofac t ual and c ompens at or ydamages ,t her at eofi nt er es t ,aswel l ast heac c r ual t her eof ,i si mpos ed,as f ol l ows : i gat i on i s br eached,and i tconsi st si nt he paymentofa sum of 1.Whent heobl money,i . e. ,al oanorf or bear anc eofmone y ,t hei nt er es tdues houl dbet hatwhi c hma y hav ebeens t i pul at edi nwr i t i ng.Fur t her mor e,t hei nt er es tdues hal li t s el fear nl egali nt er es t f r om t het i mei ti sj udi c i al l ydemanded.I nt heabs enc eofs t i pul at i on,t her at eofi nt er es t s hal lbe6% perannum t obec omput edf r om def aul t ,i . e. ,f r om j udi c i alore xt r aj udi c i al demandunderands ubj ec tt ot hepr ov i s i onsofAr t i c l e1169oft heCi v i l Code. i ga t i on,notc ons t i t ut i ngal oanorf or bea r a nc eofmone y ,i sbr e ache d 2.Whenanobl , a ni n t e r e s to nt h ea mo untofda ma ge sa wa r d edma ybei mp os e da tt h edi s c r e t i ono ft h e nnum.No i c o ur ta tt h er a t e of6% per a n t er es t ,h owe v er ,s h al lb ea dj u dge do n unl i qui dat edc l ai msordamages ,e x c eptwhenorunt i lt hedemandc anbee st abl i s hedwi t h r eas onabl ecer t ai nt y .
Ac cor di ngl y ,wher et hedemandi ses t abl i s hedwi t hr eas onabl ec er t ai nt y ,t hei nt er es ts hal l begi nt or unf r om t het i met hec l ai mi smadej udi c i al l yorex t r aj udi c i al l y( Ar t .1169,Ci v i l Code) ,butwhens uc hc er t ai nt yc annotbes or eas onabl yes t abl i s hedatt het i met he demandi smade,t hei nt er es ts hal l begi nt or unonl yf r om t hedat et hej udgmentoft he c o ur ti sma de( a twh i c ht i met h eq ua nt i fi c a t i o no fd ama ge sma ybed ee me dt oh av ebe en r eas onabl yas cer t ai ned) .Theac t ual bas ef ort hec omput at i onofl egal i nt er es ts hal l ,i nany c a s e,b eo nt h ea mo untfi n al l yad j ud ged . udgmentoft he cour tawar di ng asum ofmoney becomesfinaland 3.Whent hej execut or y ,t he r at e ofl eg ali nt er es t ,whe t hert he c as ef al l s underpar agr aph 1 or par agr aph2,abo v e,s hal lbe6% perannum f r om s uc hfi nal i t yunt i li t ss at i s f ac t i on,t hi s i nt er i m per i odbei ngdeemedt obebyt henanequi v al entt oaf or bear anc eofc r edi t .And,i n
addi t i ont ot heabo v e,j udgment st ha tha v ebe comefi nalande x ec ut or ypr i ort oJ ul y1, 2013,s hal lno tbedi s t ur bedands hal lc ont i nuet obei mpl ement edappl y i ngt her at eof i nt er es tfi x edt her ei n. x x x."
,G.R. No. Dario Nacar v. Gallery Frames and/or Felipe Bordey, Jr . 189871, August 13, 2013. See -
ht t p: / / at t y l as er na. bl ogs pot . c om/ 2013/ 09/ modi fi edr ul eonl egal i nt er es t . ht ml
