G.R. No.

141066 February 17, 2005

EVANGELINE LADONGA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS:

On May or June of the year 1990, spouses Adronico and Evangeline Ladonga wrote and issued UCPB
cheques worth (1) P 9,075.55; (2) P 12,730.00; and (3) P 8,496.55. The value of the cheques amounted to
P 30,302.1. These cheques were issued to one Alfredo Oculam, a pawnshop owner who was well-
acquainted with the accused via a customer-business relationship.

Oculam states that in the year 1989, the spouses, who were regular customers in his pawnshop, had
obtained from him three (3) loans amounting to P 30,302.1, the same amount secured in the bouncing
cheques.

The Ladonga spouses claim to have instructed Oculam to not encash said cheques as they merely served
as guarantees for their obligation to Oculam as the accounts pertaining to the cheques were actually empty.
Nevertheless, Oculam still encashed the cheques and, to no one’s surprise, they bounced.

In the proceedings, the Ladonga spouses were found guilty and ordered to pay a fine to compensate
Oculam and to serve 1 year in incarceration for each of the criminal cases, amounting to 3 years for each
of them.

Adronico Ladonga managed to appeal for a probation while Evangeline averred that she was not liable for
conspiracy as she was not involved in the issuing of the bouncing cheques.

The Court of Appeals denied her petition, holding that her lack of involvement in the issuance did not
exculpate her from liability.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT Evangeline Ladonga, who was not involved in the issuing of the bouncing cheques,
could be held liable for conspiracy.

RULING:

Nope. The Court held that the evidence in the case at bar does not satisfy the requirements for conspiracy
on the part of Evangeline Ladonga.

The prosecution failed to prove that petitioner performed any overt act in furtherance of the alleged
conspiracy. The prosecution’s lone witness, Oculam, did not specify to what extent Ladonga performed and
participated during the act done by her spouse Adronico.

The Court ordered her conviction to be set aside.

APPLICATION:

Conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence. Article 8 of
the RPC provides that "a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning
the commission of a felony and decide to commit it."
In order for Evangeline to have been found guilty of conspiracy, she should have been shown to have
performed an overt act in order to accomplish said involvement.

The Court holds that criminal liability cannot be based on general allegation of conspiracy. The rule is
firmly established that a judgment of conviction must be predicated on the strength of the evidence for
the prosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense.

LAWS:

Revised Penal Code. Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony.

Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially
provides a penalty therefor.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it.

There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some
other person or persons.

Batas Pambansa. Bilang 22.

Section 1. Checks without sufficient funds. - Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to
apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is
subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been
dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop
payment, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year
or by a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case
exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, having sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain
a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety (90) days from the
date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank.

Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who actually signed
the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.

Sec. 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. - The making, drawing and issuance of a check
payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank,
when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of
knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof
the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within
(5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.

Sec. 3. Duty of drawee; rules of evidence. - It shall be the duty of the drawee of any check, when refusing
to pay the same to the holder thereof upon presentment, to cause to be written, printed, or stamped in
plain language thereon, or attached thereto, the reason for drawee's dishonor or refusal to pay the same:
Provided, That where there are no sufficient funds in or credit with such drawee bank, such fact shall
always be explicitly stated in the notice of dishonor or refusal. In all prosecutions under this Act, the
introduction in evidence of any unpaid and dishonored check, having the drawee's refusal to pay stamped
or written thereon or attached thereto, with the reason therefor as aforesaid, shall be prima facie
evidence of the making or issuance of said check, and the due presentment to the drawee for payment
and the dishonor thereof, and that the same was properly dishonored for the reason written, stamped or
attached by the drawee on such dishonored check.

Notwithstanding receipt of an order to stop payment, the drawee shall state in the notice that there were
no sufficient funds in or credit with such bank for the payment in full of such check, if such be the fact.

Sec. 4. Credit construed. - The word "credit" as used herein shall be construed to mean an arrangement or
understanding with the bank for the payment of such check.

Sec. 5. Liability under the Revised Penal Code. - Prosecution under this Act shall be without prejudice to
any liability for violation of any provision of the Revised Penal Code.

Sec. 6. Separability clause. - If any separable provision of this Act be declared unconstitutional, the
remaining provisions shall continue to be in force.

Sec. 7. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen days after publication in the Official Gazette.