489 Phil. 22
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
“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.Upon arraignment, petitioner, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge. Josalie Baguio has remained at large.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
“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.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.
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As regards accused JOSALIE S. BAGUIO who remains at-large, let the case be sent to the ARCHIVES to be withdrawn therefrom as soon as she is apprehended.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.”[2]
“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.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.
x x x”
“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.