pp vs ojeda

8/19/2019 pp vs ojeda

1/10

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 104238-58. June 3, 2004]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. OR! !"ELL!OJE#!, appellant .

# E I S I O N

ORON!, J.:

For review is the decision[1] dated June 21, 11 o! the Re"iona# Tria# $ourt o! %ani#a, &ranch '(, the dis)ositive )ortion o! which read*

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Cora Abella Ojeda guilty beyond reasonable

doubt of the crime of Estafa as defined and penalized under paragraph !d" of Article

#$% of the Re&ised 'enal Code, as amended by Rep( Act )**%, in Criminal Case +o(

**--* and hereby sentences her to suffer a penalty of reclusion perpetua, .ith the

accessories pro&ided by la. and .ith credit for pre&enti&e imprisonment undergone,

if any, in accordance .ith Article / of the Re&ised 'enal Code as amended, and to

pay complainant Ruby Chua the amount of 0.o Hundred 0.enty Eight 0housand

0hree Hundred 1i2 !'*,#3-(33" 'esos .ith interests thereon from the time of

demand until fully paid(

4i5e.ise, the Court also finds the said accused guilty for 6iolation of 7atas 'ambansa

7lg( in Criminal Cases +os( **--#3, **--#, **--#% to **--)3, **

--), **--)#, ** --)% to **--)* !$)" counts and hereby sentences her to

suffer a penalty of one year of imprisonment for each count( On the other hand, the

other charges doc5eted as Criminal Cases +os( ** --/, **--#$, **--##, **

--#), **--)$ and **--)) are hereby dismissed for insufficiency of e&idence(

Costs against accused in all instances(89

+))e##ant $ora +e##a O-eda was char"ed in 21 se)arate In!or.ations !or esta!a in$ri.ina# $ase No/ ((022( and !or vio#ation o! &atas a.ansa 3&4 22 in $ri.ina#$ase Nos/ ((022 to ((025(/

The In!or.ation char"in" O-eda with esta!a read*

0hat on or about the first .ee5 of +o&ember, $/*#, in the City of :anila, 'hilippines,

the said accused did then and there .illfully, unla.fully and feloniously defraud

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn1


2/10

R;7< CH;A in the follo.ing manner, to .it= the said accused, .ell 5no.ing that

she did not ha&e sufficient funds in the ban5 and .ithout informing the said Ruby

Chua of such fact dre., made out and issued to the latter the follo.ing postdated

Rizal Commercial 7an5ing Corporation chec5s, to .it=

Chec5 +o( >ate Amount

$( 3##%%3 +o&( %, $/*# '$?,$33(33

( 3)$?* +o&( %, $/*# %,#/(#)

#( 3)/#% +o&( -, $/*# $,*)3($/

)( 3)$?// +o&( /, $/*# $$,/%#(#*

%( 3##%#3 +o&( $3, $/*# $/,)#?(#)

-( 3)$?$) +o&( $3, $/*# -, */3(33

?( 3)/) +o&( $3, $/*# $,/)$(%/

*( 3)$?*# +o&( $, $/*# %,#/(#)

/( 3)$*33 +o&( $), $/*# $$,/%#(#/$3( 3)$?** +o&( $%, $/*# #,3*$(/3

$$( 3##%/ +o&( $%, $/*# $/,)#?(#)

$( 3)$?*) +o&( $*, $/*# %,#/(#)

$#( 3)/3$ +o&( $*, $/*# $$,/%#(#*

$)( 3)/3 +o&( #, $/*# $$,/%#(#*

$%( 3)$?*% +o&( %, $/*# %,#/(#)

$-( 3)/3# +o&( /, $/*# $$,/%#(#*

$?( 3##%# +o&( /, $/*# $#,-3#(

$*( 3)$?*- +o&( #3, $/*# %,#/(#)

$/( 3)/3% >ec( *, $/*# $$,/%#(#/

3( 3)#33) >ec( $3, $/*# ,#*-(%

$( 3)/3? >ec( $%, $/*# $$,/%#(#*

( 3)/3- >ec( $*, $/*# $$,/%#(#/

'*,#3-(-3

in payment of &arious fabrics and te2tile materials all in the total amount

of '*,#3-(-3 .hich the said accused ordered or purchased from the said R;7<

CH;A on the same day@ that upon presentation of the said chec5s to the ban5 for

payment, the same .ere dishonored and payment thereof refused for the reason

Account Closed, and said accused, not.ithstanding due notice to her by the said Ruby

Chua of such dishonor of the said chec5s, failed and refused and still fails and refuses

to deposit the necessary amount to co&er the amount of the chec5s to the damage and

prejudice of the said R;7< CH;A in the aforesaid amount of '*,#3-(-3,

'hilippine currency(

Contrary to la.(


3/10

The In!or.ations char"in" O-eda !or vio#ation o! & 22 were si.i#ar#6 worded e7ce)t!or the a.ounts o! the chec8s, the chec8 nu.ers and the dates o! the chec8s*

0hat on or about the first .ee5 of +o&ember $/*#, in the City of :anila, 'hilippines,

the said accused did then and there .ilfully, unla.fully and feloniously ma5e or dra.

and issue to R;7< CH;A to apply on account or for &alue Rizal Commercial7an5ing Corp( Chec5 +o( 3)$?*) dated +o&ember $*, $/*# payable to Ruby Chua in

the amount of '%,#/(#), said accused .ell 5no.ing that at the time of issue

heshethey did not ha&e sufficient funds in or credit .ith the dra.ee ban5 or payment

of such chec5 in full upon its presentment, .hich chec5, .hen presented for payment

.ithin ninety !/3" days from the date thereof .as subseBuently dishonored by the

dra.ee ban5 for insufficiency of funds, and despite receipt of notice of such dishonor,

said accused failed to pay said complainant the amount of said chec5 or to ma5e

arrangement for full payment of the same .ithin fi&e !%" ban5ing days after recei&ing

said notice(

Contrary to la.(

The )ertinent !acts o! the case !o##ow/

+))e##ant $ora +e##a O-eda used to u6 !arics 3telas4 !ro. co.)#ainant Ru6$hua/ For the three 6ears a))ro7i.ate#6 she transacted usiness with $hua, a))e##antused )ostdated chec8s to )a6 !or the !arics she ou"ht/ On Nove.er 9, 1(',a))e##ant )urchased !ro. $hua various !arics and te7ti#e .ateria#s worth 22(,': !or which she issued 22 )ostdated chec8s earin" di!!erent dates and a.ounts/

$hua #ater )resented to the an8 !or )a6.ent chec8 no/ :''99: dated Nove.er 9,

1(' in the a.ount o! 1;,1::['] ut it was dishonored due to +ccount $#osed/ [5] On +)ri#1:, 1(5, $hua de)osited the rest o! the chec8s ut a## were dishonored !or the sa.ereason/[9] De.ands were a##e"ed#6 .ade on the a))e##ant to .a8e "ood the dishonoredchec8s, to no avai#/


4/10

her to reclusion perpetua. The tria# court a#so convicted a))e##ant o! vio#ation o! & 22!or issuin" ouncin" chec8s/ However, the court a quo he#d her "ui#t6 o! on#6 15 countsout o! the 22 ouncin" chec8s issued/ The court reasoned*

222 0his is due to the fact that of the chec5s, t.o of them are not co&ered by the

indictment( 0his refers to Chec5 +o( 3)/#% dated +o&ember -, $/*# in the amountof '$,*)3($/ !E2hibit >" and Chec5 +o( 3)/) dated +o&ember $3, $/*# in the

amount of '$,/)$(%/ !E2hibit F"( And of the total number of chec5s, si2 of them .ere

not signed by the accused but by the latters husband !E2hibits C,H,,:,R and O"( 0he

accused should not be liable for the issuance of the - chec5s in the absence of any

sho.ing of conspiracy(8?9

+))e##ant a))ea#ed to this $ourt, see8in" ac?uitta#/ Her counse#, however, !ai#ed to!i#e the a))e##ants rie! within the )rescried )eriod/ Her a))ea# was thus dis.issed in areso#ution o! this $ourt dated Octoer 15, 12/ [(]

In her .otion !or reconsideration, a))e##ant as8ed this $ourt to reverse its order o! dis.issa# in the interest o! sustantia# -ustice and e?uit6/[] =e initia##6 !ound noco.)e##in" reason to "rant her .otion and reso#ved to den6 with !ina#it6 a))e##ants %Rin a reso#ution dated Feruar6 ', 1'/ [1:] +))e##ant therea!ter !i#ed a Second and @r"ent%otion !or Reconsideration, attachin" thereto an +!!idavit o! Desistance o! co.)#ainantRu6 $hua which stated in )art*

222 222 222(

( that the defendant :rs( Cora Ojeda has already fully paid her monetary obligation

to me in the amount of '*,#3-(33 .hich is the subject of the aforementioned cases@

222 222 222(

%( 0hat as the pri&ate complainant, D am no. appealing to the sense of compassion and

humanity of the good justices of the 1upreme Court to reconsider the appeal of :rs(

Cora Ojeda and D solemnly pray that the criminal liability be e2tinguished .ith her

ci&il liability(8$$9

In a reso#ution dated %arch 1;, 1',[12] this $ourt denied the second %R !or havin"een !i#ed without #eave o! court/ In the sa.e reso#ution, this $ourt ordered the entr6 o!

-ud".ent in due course/

+))e##ant therea!ter !i#ed another .otion dated +)ri# 21, 1', )ra6in" that she ereco..ended to then resident Fide# V/ Ra.os !or e7ecutive c#e.enc6/ In su))ort o! such .otion, she once .ore attached the a!!idavit o! desistance [1'] o! co.)#ainant Ru6$hua which cate"orica##6 dec#ared that the de!endant, %s/ $ora O-eda, 3had4 a#read6!u##6 )aid her .onetar6 o#i"ations to 3$hua4 in the a.ount o! 22(,': which 3was4 thesu-ect o! the a!ore.entioned cases/ [15]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn14


5/10

In view o! such s)ecia# circu.stances, this $ourt issued a reso#ution dated June ,1'[19] reca##in" its reso#utions dated Octoer 15, 12, Feruar6 ', 1' and %arch 1;,1' !or hu.anitarian reasons and in the interest o! -ustice, and in order that this $ourt.a6 reso#ve a))e##ants a))ea# on the .erits/ [1]

Hence, the instant a))ea# with the !o##owin" assi"n.ents o! error*

I.

0HE 4OWER CO;R0 ERRE> D+ FD+>D+ 0HA0 >ECED0 WA1 E:'4O

7< ACC;1E> A''E44A+0 WHE+ 1HE D11;E> 0HE CHEC1 0O 0HE

'RD6A0E CO:'4AD+A+0(

II.

0HE 4OWER CO;R0 ERRE> D+ +O0 FD+>D+ 0HA0 0HE D11;A+CE 7< 0HE

ACC;1E>A''E44A+0 OF 0HE CHEC1 0O 0HE 'RD6A0E CO:'4AD+A+0

WA1 :ERE4< A :O>E OF 'A 7EE+0HEDR 'RAC0DCE FOR 0HREE !#" D+ +O0 FD+>D+ 0HA0 OO> FAD0H D1 A

6A4D> >EFE+1E AAD+10 E10AFA 7< 'O10>A0D+ A CHEC

I$.

0HE 4OWER CO;R0 ERRE> D+ CO+6DC0D+ 0HE ACC;1E> OF FO;R0EE+!$)" CO;+01 OF 7('( WHE+ 0HERE WA1 +O 'ROOF OF +O0DCE OF

>D1HO+OR 0O 0HE ACC;1E>(

$.

0HE 4OWER CO;R0 ERRE> D+ +O0 FD+>D+ 0HA0 1D+CE $# OF 0HE $)

CHEC1 WERE >E'O1D0E> O+4< AF0ER 0HE 4A'1E OF 0HE /3 >A<

'ERDO>, HE+CE, 0HE 'RD:A FACDE 'RE1;:'0DO+ OF +OW4E>E >OE1

+O0 A''4


6/10


7/10

contracted at the ti.e it is issuedC 324 #ac8 or insu!!icienc6 o! !unds to cover the chec8C3'4 da.a"e to the )a6ee thereo!/ Deceit and da.a"e are essentia# e#e.ents o! theo!!ense and .ust e esta#ished 6 satis!actor6 )roo! to warrant conviction/ [21] Thus, thedrawer o! the dishonored chec8 is "iven three da6s !ro. recei)t o! the notice o! dishonor to cover the a.ount o! the chec8/ Otherwise a prima facie )resu.)tion o!

deceit arises/The )rosecution !ai#ed to )rove deceit in this case/ The prima facie )resu.)tion o!

deceit was success!u##6 reutted 6 a))e##ants evidence o! "ood !aith, a de!ensein estafa 6 )ostdatin" a chec8/[22] Aood !aith .a6 e de.onstrated, !or instance, 6 adetors o!!er to arran"e a )a6.ent sche.e with his creditor/ In this case, the detor noton#6 .ade arran"e.ents !or )a6.entC as co.)#ainant herse#! cate"orica##6 stated, thedetor0a))e##ant !u##6 )aid the entire a.ount o! the dishonored chec8s/

It .ust e noted that our Revised ena# $ode was enacted to )ena#i>e un#aw!u#acts acco.)anied 6 evi# intent deno.inated as cri.es mala in se/ The )rinci)a#consideration is the e7istence o! .a#icious intent/ There is a concurrence o! !reedo.,

inte##i"ence and intent which to"ether .a8e u) the cri.ina# .ind ehind the cri.ina# act/Thus, to constitute a cri.e, the act .ust, "enera##6 and in .ost cases, e acco.)anied6 a cri.ina# intent/ Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. No cri.e is co..itted i! the.ind o! the )erson )er!or.in" the act co.)#ained o! is innocent/ +s we he#d in Tabuenavs/ Sandiganbayan*[2']

0he rule .as reiterated in People v. Pacana, although this case in&ol&ed falsification

of public documents and estafa=

Ordinarily, e&il intent must unite .ith an unla.ful act for there to be a crime( Actus

non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea( 0here can be no crime .hen the criminal mind is

.anting(

American jurisprudence echoes the same principle( Dt adheres to the &ie. that criminal

intent in embezzlement is not based on technical mista5es as to the legal effect of a

transaction honestly entered into, and there can be no embezzlement if the mind of the

person doing the act is innocent or if there is no .rongful purpose(

The accused .a6 thus )rove that he acted in "ood !aith and that he had nointention to convert the .one6 or "oods !or his )ersona# ene!it/ [25] =e are convincedthat a))e##ant was a#e to )rove the asence o! cri.ina# intent in her transactions with

$hua/ Had her intention een tainted with .a#ice and deceit, a))e##ant wou#d not havee7erted e7traordinar6 e!!ort to )a6 the co.)#ainant, "iven her own usiness and!inancia# reverses/

L!& OF NOTIE OF #ISHONOR

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/103501_03.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/103501_03.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/103501_03.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/103501_03.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/103501_03.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/103501_03.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/104238_58.htm#_ftn24


8/10

=e a#so note that the )rosecution )resented virtua##6 no evidence to show that theindis)ensa#e notice o! dishonor was sent to and received 6 a))e##ant/


9/10

$O@RT*

E =hat )roo! is there to show that accused received the #etter ecause 6our ?uestionis )re.ises 3sic 4 on the assu.)tion that the accused received the #etter

+TTB/ +NA


10/10

sent throu"h re"istered .ai# and that the sa.e was received 6 a))e##ant/ &ut it didnot/ Ovious#6, it re#ied .ere#6 on the wea8ness o! the evidence o! the de!ense/

This $ourt there!ore cannot, with .ora# certaint6, convict a))e##ant o! vio#ation o! &22/ The evident !ai#ure o! the )rosecution to esta#ish that she was "iven the re?uisitenotice o! dishonor -usti!ies her ac?uitta#/ [':]

+s he#d in ao vs/ $ourt o! +))ea#s*['1]

Dt has been obser&ed that the 1tate, under this statute, actually offers the &iolator a

compromise by allo.ing him to perform some act .hich operates to preempt the

criminal action, and if he opts to perform it the action is abated( 0his .as also

compared to certain la.s allo.ing illegal possessors of firearms a certain period of

time to surrender the illegally possessed firearms to the o&ernment, .ithout

incurring any criminal liability( Dn this light, the full payment of the amount appearing

in the chec5 .ithin fi&e ban5ing days from notice of dishonor is a complete defense(

0he absence of a notice of dishonor necessarily depri&es an accused an opportunity to preclude a criminal prosecution( Accordingly, procedural due process clearly enjoins

that a notice of dishonor be actually ser&ed on petitioner( 'etitioner has a right to

demand and the basic postulates of fairness reBuire that the notice of dishonor be

actually sent to and recei&ed by her to afford her the opportunity to a&ert prosecution

under 7('( (

Stated otherwise, res)onsii#it6 under & 22 was )ersona# to a))e##antC hence,)ersona# 8now#ed"e o! the notice o! dishonor was necessar6/ $onse?uent#6, whi#e there.a6 have een constructive notice to a))e##ant re"ardin" the insu!!icienc6 o! her !undsin the an8, it was not enou"h to satis!6 the re?uire.ents o! )rocedura# due )rocess/

Fina##6, it is worth .entionin" that notice o! dishonor is re?uired under oth )ar/ 23d4 +rt/ '19 o! the R$ and Sec/ 2 o! & 22/ =hi#e the R$ )rescries that the drawer o! the chec8 .ust de)osit the a.ount needed to cover his chec8 within three da6s !ro.recei)t o! notice o! dishonor, & 22, on the other hand, re?uires the .a8er or drawer to)a6 the a.ount o! the chec8 within five da6s !ro. recei)t o! notice o! dishonor/ @nder oth #aws, notice o! dishonor is necessar6 !or )rosecution 3!or esta!a and vio#ation o! &224/ =ithout )roo! o! notice o! dishonor, 8now#ed"e o! insu!!icienc6 o! !unds cannot e)resu.ed and no cri.e 3whether esta!a or vio#ation o! & 224 can e dee.ed to e7ist/

'HEREFORE, the decision o! the tria# court is here6 R

Documents

pp vs ojeda