4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Danan delivered P80,000 to appellant on August 10, 2002 but none of the vouchers presented by appellant was issued on said date. On August 20, 2002, private complainant Tajadao paid P40,000 to appellant but the latter’s voucher for said date covers only P22,480. More importantly, there is nothing in appellant’s vouchers to indicate that the amounts listed therein were received from private complainants. On the other hand, while the vouchers presented by private complainants Aglanao, Danan and Tajadao do not bear their names, they could not have come into possession of said form except through appellant. Hence, appellant admitted in open court that she received P80,000 from private complainants and that she was authorized to issue receipts, thus: ATTY: BETIC: Q: Were you authorized to issue receipts in behalf of that Agency? A: yes, Sir. xxxx Q: Now, you said that you were employed with Golden Gate Agency owned and operated by Marilen Cal[l]ueng, and as a cashier did you [happen] to come across private complainants, Billy R. Da[n]an, Alberto Aglanao and Rey Tajadao? A: Yes, Sir before they were asked to [sign] a contract they paid to me. Q: Do you know how much were paid or given [by] the persons I have mentioned? A: Eighty Thousand Pesos Only (P80,000.00) Sir. Q: Each? A: Yes, Sir.[31] Be that as it may, we take exception as regards private complainant Roylan Ursulum. The Court finds that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the third and fourth elements of estafa as regards the incident with Roylan Ursulum. While Ursulum claims that he delivered to Chua two installments of P40,000 each on July 29, 2002 and August 3, 2002, he failed to produce receipts to substantiate the same. Instead, Ursulum relies on ten text messages allegedly sent by appellant as evidence of their transaction. Out of said series of messages, Ursulum presented only one which reads, “Siguro anong laking saya nyo pag namatay na ko.” Notably, the prosecution did not present evidence to confirm whether said text message actually emanated from appellant. Assuming arguendo that it did, still, said message alone does not constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was able to obtain P80,000 from Ursulum as a result of her false pretenses. Unlike in illegal recruitment where profit is immaterial, a conviction for estafa requires a clear showing that the offended party parted with his money or property upon the offender’s false pretenses, and suffered damage thereby. In every criminal prosecution, the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged and the complicity or participation of the accused.[32] It is imperative, therefore, that damage as an element of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) be elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55182 9/14