Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME705
September 4, 2013.*
18
18
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001570fedb788bb6b1823003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/20
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME705
cover his check within three days from receipt of the notice of
dishonor.
Remedial Law Evidence Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt In
every criminal prosecution, however, the identity of the offender, like
the crime itself, must be established by proof beyond reasonable
doubt.In every criminal prosecution, the identity of the offender,
like the crime itself, must be established by proof beyond reasonable
doubt. In that regard, the Prosecution did not establish beyond
reasonable doubt that it was Wagas who had defrauded Ligaray by
issuing the check.
Mercantile Law Negotiable Instruments Law Checks Under
the Negotiable Instruments Law, a check payable to cash is payable
to the bearer and could be negotiated by mere delivery without the
need of an indorsement.The check delivered to Ligaray was made
payable to cash. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, this type of
check was payable to the bearer and could be negotiated by mere
delivery without the need of an indorsement. This rendered it
highly probable that Wagas had issued the check not to Ligaray,
but to somebody else like Caada, his brotherinlaw, who then
negotiated it to Ligaray. Relevantly, Ligaray confirmed that he did
not himself see or meet Wagas at the time of the transaction and
thereafter, and expressly stated that the person who signed for and
received the stocks of rice was Caada.
Criminal Law Estafa Estafa by Postdating Checks What the
law punishes is the fraud or deceit, not the mere issuance of the
worthless check.It bears stressing that the accused, to be guilty of
estafa as charged, must have used the check in order to defraud the
complainant. What the law punishes is the fraud or deceit, not the
mere issuance of the worthless check. Wagas could not be held
guilty of estafa simply because he had issued the check used to
defraud Ligaray. The proof of guilt must still clearly show that it
had been
19
19
2/20
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME705
20
3/20
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME705
21
Antecedents
Wagas was charged with estafa under the information
that reads:
That on or about the 30th day of April, 1997, and for
sometime prior and subsequent thereto, in the City of Cebu,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent, with intent to
gain and by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of
the fraud, to wit: knowing that he did not have sufficient
funds deposited with the Bank of Philippine Islands, and
without informing Alberto Ligaray of that circumstance, with
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001570fedb788bb6b1823003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
4/20
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME705
intent to defraud the latter, did then and there issue Bank of
the Philippine Islands Check No. 0011003, dated May 08,
1997 in the amount of P200,000.00, which check was issued
in payment of an obligation, but which check when presented
for encashment with the bank, was dishonored for the reason
drawn against insufficient funds and inspite of notice and
several demands made upon said accused to make good said
check or replace the same with cash, he had failed and
refused and up to the present time still fails and refuses to do
so, to the damage and prejudice of Alberto Ligaray in the
amount aforestated.
CONTRARY TO LAW.1
22
1997, Wagas placed an order for 200 bags of rice over the
telephone that he and his wife would not agree at first to
the proposed payment of the order by postdated check, but
because of Wagas assurance that he would not disappoint
them and that he had the means to pay them because he
had a lending business and money in the bank, they
relented and accepted the order that he released the goods
to Wagas on April 30, 1997 and at the same time received
Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) Check No. 0011003 for
P200,000.00 payable to cash and postdated May 8, 1997
that he later deposited the check with Solid Bank, his
depository bank, but the check was dishonored due to
insufficiency of funds5 that he called Wagas about the
matter, and the latter told him that he would pay upon his
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001570fedb788bb6b1823003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
5/20
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME705
23
property that he wanted to buy, but when the sale did not
push through, he did not anymore fund the check.9
On crossexamination, the Prosecution confronted Wagas
with a letter dated July 3, 1997 apparently signed by him
and addressed to Ligarays counsel, wherein he admitted
owing Ligaray P200,000.00 for goods received, to wit:
This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated June 23,
1997 which is selfexplanatory. It is worthy also to discuss with
you the environmental facts of the case for your consideration, to
wit:
1.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001570fedb788bb6b1823003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
6/20
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME705
3.
24
GILBERT R. WAGAS10
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001570fedb788bb6b1823003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
7/20
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME705
25
8/20
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME705
26
9/20
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME705
27
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001570fedb788bb6b1823003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
10/20
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME705
28
to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice
from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has
been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be
prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or
fraudulent act.
11/20
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME705
29
30
12/20
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME705
bearer:
(a) When it is expressed to be so payable or
(b) When it is payable to a person named therein or bearer or
(c)
person, and such fact was known to the person making it so payable or
(d) When the name of the payee does not purport to be the name of
any person or
(e) When the only or last indorsement is an indorsement in blank.
Section 30.
What
constitutes
negotiation.An
instrument
is
31
13/20
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME705
Caada had been acting for Wagas. This lack of factual and
legal bases for the RTC to infer so obtained despite Wagas
being Caadas brotherinlaw.
Finally, Ligarays declaration that it was Wagas who had
transacted with him over the telephone was not reliable
because he did not explain how he determined that the
person with whom he had the telephone conversation was
really Wagas whom he had not yet met or known before
then. We deem it essential for purposes of reliability and
trustworthiness that a telephone conversation like that one
Ligaray supposedly had with the buyer of rice to be first
authenticated before it could be received in evidence.
Among others, the person with whom the witness conversed
by telephone should be first satisfactorily identified by voice
recognition or any other means.32 Without the
authentication, incriminating another person just by
adverting to the telephone conversation with him would be
all too easy. In this respect, an identification based on
familiarity with the voice of the caller, or because of clearly
recognizable peculiarities of the caller would have sufficed.33
The identity of the caller could also be established by the
callers selfidentification, coupled with additional evidence,
like the context and timing of the tele
_______________
32 Sandoval II v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R.
No. 149380, July 3, 2002, 383 SCRA 770, 784.
3329A Am Jur 2d Evidence 1403.
32
32
14/20
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME705
33
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001570fedb788bb6b1823003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
15/20
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME705
34
16/20
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME705
35
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001570fedb788bb6b1823003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
17/20
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME705
36
proof on his or her shoulders. For this reason, the first duty
of the Prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove the
identity of the criminal. For even if the commission of the
crime can be established, without competent proof of the
identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, there can
be no conviction.42
There is no question that an identification that does not
preclude a reasonable possibility of mistake cannot be
accorded any evidentiary force.43 Thus, considering that the
circumstances of the identification of Wagas as the person
who transacted on the rice did not preclude a reasonable
possibility of mistake, the proof of guilt did not measure up
to the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt demanded
in criminal cases. Perforce, the accuseds constitutional right
of presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved is
not overcome, and he is entitled to an acquittal,44 even
though his innocence may be doubted.45
Nevertheless, an accused, though acquitted of estafa,
may still be held civilly liable where the preponderance of
the established facts so warrants.46 Wagas as the admitted
drawer
_______________
42 People v. Esmale, G.R. Nos. 10298182, April 21, 1995, 243 SCRA
578, 592.
43 Natividad v. Court of Appeals, No. L40233, June 25, 1980, 98
SCRA 335, 346, citing People v. Beltran, No. L31860, November 29,
1974, 61 SCRA 246, 250 People v. Manambit, G.R. Nos. 7274445, April
18, 1997, 271 SCRA 344, 377, citing People v. Maongco, G.R. Nos.
10896365, March 1, 1994, 230 SCRA 562, 575.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001570fedb788bb6b1823003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
18/20
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME705
L66907,
April
14,
1987,
149
SCRA
240,
244
Perez
v.
37
61.
instrument admits the existence of the payee and his then capacity to
indorse and engages that, on due presentment, the instrument will be
accepted or paid, or both, according to its tenor, and that if it be
dishonoured and the necessary proceedings on dishonour be duly taken,
he will pay the amount thereof to the holder or to any subsequent
indorser who may be compelled to pay it. But the drawer may insert in
the instrument an express stipulation negativing or limiting his own
liability to the holder.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001570fedb788bb6b1823003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
19/20
9/10/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME705
38
38
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001570fedb788bb6b1823003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
20/20