Here, the Information alleged that petitioner Medina acted with abuse of confidence. However, the element of taking, in the first place, has not been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

In affirming petitioner Medina's conviction for estafa, the CA relied on the acknowledgment receipts allegedly issued by petitioner Medina to the PPSTA members. The RTC, in turn, held that "[t]he total amount received by the accused as evidenced by the acknowledgment receipts she issued is P83,732.40."

 In his testimony, Monforte admitted that he had no personal knowledge that it was petitioner Medina who received the members' contributions and that his basis for claiming that she did, in fact, receive these contributions were the acknowledgment receipts she issued.

It must be emphasized that these acknowledgment receipts are private documents. Under Sec. 20, Rule 132, Revised Rules of Evidence, before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution must be proved either (a) by anyone who saw the document executed or written or (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.

In Maglasang v. People, the Court explained the requirement of authentication as follows:

"Pursuant to Section 20, a private document may be authenticated by the person who executed it, the person before whom its execution was acknowledged, any person who was present and saw it executed, the person who, after its execution, saw it and recognized the signature, being familiar thereto or an expert, or the person to whom the parties to the instrument had previously confessed execution thereof. "In this case, neither Rene nor P/Ens Pabico saw the execution of the letter. Though Rene claimed that he was personally familiar with Galileo's signature, he did not explain why or how he became familiar with it. As such, we cannot give credence to Rene's claim because it does not have any basis. Aside from Rene and P/Ens Pabico, no other witness attempted to authenticate the letter. Thus, the respondent failed to establish the due execution and authenticity of the letter.

"While Monforte enumerated the various acknowledgment receipts, payment slips, and statements of account allegedly issued by petitioner Medina in his direct testimony, he did not authenticate them. He did not claim to have seen the execution of the receipts, nor did he explain why or how he became familiar with petitioner Medina's signature. Only the Statement of Account, signed by petitioner Medina and authenticated by Tamondong, indicating the former's receipt of P1,938 from Tamondong, and the UCPB Payment Slip, also signed by petitioner Medina and authenticated by Dumbab, indicating the former's receipt of P2,040 from Dumbab, were properly admitted into evidence by the RTC."

Accordingly, the judgement against Danica was reversed.  She is not only exonerated from estafa but theft as well.

The facts and quoted salient part of the decision are from the abovementioned case.