Criminal Law- People vs. Ladonga

This Case is in reference to the application of Art 8 and 10 of the Revised Penal Code

"B.P. Blg 22- Bouncing Checks Law"

Case of People of the R.P. vs. Ladonga
G.R. No. 141066 17February2005

FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Petitioner Evangeline Ladonga seeks a review of the Decision, dated May 17, 1999, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 20443, affirming the Decision dated August 24, 1996, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3 of Bohol, in Criminal Case Nos. 7068, 7069 and 7070 convicting her of violation of B.P. Blg. 22, otherwise known as The Bouncing Checks Law.

The RTC, convicted both Evangeline Ladonga and her spouse Adronico, both are regular customers in the pawnshop business of Mr. Oculam in Tagbilaran City, Bohol; sometime in May 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained a P9,075.55 loan from him, guaranteed by United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) Check No. 284743, post dated to dated July 7, 1990 issued by Adronico; sometime in the last week of April 1990 and during the first week of May 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained an additional loan of P12,730.00, guaranteed by UCPB Check No. 284744, post dated to dated July 26, 1990 issued by Adronico; between May and June 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained a third loan in the amount of P8,496.55, guaranteed by UCPB Check No. 106136, post dated to July 22, 1990 issued by Adronico; the three checks bounced upon presentment for the reason "CLOSED ACCOUNT"; when the Ladonga spouses failed to redeem the check, despite repeated demands, he filed a criminal complaint against them.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

In this case Evangeline Ladonga is trying to contest her conviction on the grounds that she was not a party to the agreement and that she was not a signatory to the checks and that the decision of the Court of Appeals with regard to her being a co-conspirator is w/o merit.

 In determining if she is liable for the same crime it must be proven that there was conspiracy
 It was not proven by direct evidence even by the witness testimony that Evangeline Ladonga was merely present at the time of the issuance of the checks. However, this inference cannot be stretched to mean concurrence with the criminal design.
 Conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence. Conspiracy transcends mere companionship and mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy. Even knowledge, acquiescence in or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission of the crime with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.
 Criminal liability cannot be incurred based on general allegation of conspiracy. In criminal cases, moral certainty -- not mere possibility -- determines the guilt or the innocence of the accused. Even when the evidence for the defense is weak, the accused must be acquitted when the prosecution has not proven guilt with the requisite quantum of proof required in all criminal cases.

HELD:

The instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision, of the Court of Appeals convicting the petitioner of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Evangeline Ladonga is ACQUITTED of the charges against her under B.P. Blg. 22 for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. No pronouncement as to costs.

I hope this helps.

Jeff David